NELO 560M Review

More
5 years 11 months ago #26497 by Ranga
Replied by Ranga on topic NELO 560M Review
That is quite amazing!
You would prefer to have a high volume 6.1m ski than a relatively low volume 5.6m ski? With my rudimentary maths I make the 560L a more suitable light weight paddler ski than the Swordfish, is the 560 now too long for you?
That can`t be it as you already have a 6.1m ski, which by the way is not designed for light weight paddlers and you would prefer to stick with that one?
By the way the 560M is the same length as the 560L, if I am correct the same hull as well with less freeboard.

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

More
5 years 11 months ago #26498 by mckengmsurfski
Replied by mckengmsurfski on topic NELO 560M Review
Thanks for the updates Ludovic! Having been playing with the 560 ski with my training partners here for a few months, we're looking forward to our Nelo container arriving here in the USA in 2 weeks! Can't wait to test the 560M and the 520 ski! I'm right at 75kg, so it will be an interesting test for the 560M.

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

More
5 years 11 months ago - 5 years 11 months ago #26499 by Kayaker Greg
Replied by Kayaker Greg on topic NELO 560M Review
Lol I'm not going to buy a ski that is capable of carrying paddlers up to 120kg!

Yes I bought the SF when I was 76kg (once my SEL became too big for me).

The SF doesn't feel high volume to me at all but does chuck me around more once I got below 70kg. I would like a smaller ski yes but I'm not going to buy another ski that is too big for me.
Last edit: 5 years 11 months ago by Kayaker Greg.

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

  • photofr
  • photofr's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • SURFSKI: K1 560M - 560x43.8 / K2 Viper - 650x56
More
5 years 11 months ago #26503 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review

Kayaker Greg wrote: 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.


@ Greg
That's a bummer. You are like the "perfect candidate" for the 560M.
The "L" probably won't disappoint: you'll still find it very different from other skis on the market. The one thing I know for sure is that no matter your weight, you will find the 560 (L) super responsive. For the rest, only you and time on ski will tell.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

More
5 years 11 months ago #26515 by therook
Replied by therook on topic NELO 560M Review
Hello nello France

I note that your orange ski has no seams. was this a special order?

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

  • photofr
  • photofr's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • SURFSKI: K1 560M - 560x43.8 / K2 Viper - 650x56
More
5 years 11 months ago #26516 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
Good catch: yeah, the orange 560 has no seams...

All future Nelo surfski will have NO SEAMS - and I admit: it looks pretty cool.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

More
5 years 11 months ago #26518 by mckengmsurfski
Replied by mckengmsurfski on topic NELO 560M Review
Yes, the Nelo skis on our container due in the next 2 weeks here in South Carolina will be seamless.

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

More
5 years 10 months ago - 5 years 10 months ago #26660 by Uffilation
Last edit: 5 years 10 months ago by Uffilation.

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

  • photofr
  • photofr's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • SURFSKI: K1 560M - 560x43.8 / K2 Viper - 650x56
More
5 years 10 months ago #26661 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
That's a great review, for all 4 skis.
Please keep in mind that while the 560 and the 560M share the same numbers, the M has a "Magical" letter to it - punt intended ahahahahah

The 560 has a lot of peculiar features. Being a shorter ski that most, it's more maneuverable and quick when it comes to jumping from one wave to another. Even its rigid foot strap makes it different, and adds to overall speed.

The 560M has other peculiarities, that I'll admit get somewhat dismissed. However, the 560M is the only ski I know that's a true Elite ski designed from A to Z for lighter paddlers. It's an good ski to demo if you are under 75 kilos, and a MUST TRY if you are an advanced or elite paddler under 70 kilos.

This is important to note, because there are in my opinion, only couple of other models in the world made for:
Elite Smaller Paddlers - and they are all pretty darn long, thus lacking a bit of responsiveness when moving a 65 kilos body around on the ski.

I know the numbers may be confusing. Personally, I would have called the 560 the 560 (geared towards paddlers over 75 kilos). However, I would have named the 560M the 559 - just to emphasize that it's different, because it is actually very different with a lighter paddler on it.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

More
5 years 10 months ago #26665 by Aurelius
Replied by Aurelius on topic NELO 560M Review
This may be a bit off topic, but the weights you're listing here lead me to wonder whether smaller/lighter paddlers have a physical advantage in surf ski racing, as they do in other sports like competitive cycling.

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

  • photofr
  • photofr's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • SURFSKI: K1 560M - 560x43.8 / K2 Viper - 650x56
More
5 years 10 months ago #26667 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
I think this is what I actually LOVE about surfskis:
You can use them in any weather: dead-flat water, or super rough downwind.
You can be tiny-small, or super tall and heavy.

They key is finding a ski that matches your abilities (is it stable enough for you). Since there are only very few skis truly designed for lighter paddlers, it's fair to say that right now: surfski paddling has been geared towards heavier paddlers.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

  • photofr
  • photofr's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • SURFSKI: K1 560M - 560x43.8 / K2 Viper - 650x56
More
5 years 10 months ago #26668 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
Smaller paddlers benefit from balancing with a bit more ease at the beginning. Taller paddlers usually have a longer arm span. In the end, I find the sport very equitable.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

More
5 years 10 months ago #26669 by Aurelius
Replied by Aurelius on topic NELO 560M Review

photofr wrote: Smaller paddlers benefit from balancing with a bit more ease at the beginning. Taller paddlers usually have a longer arm span. In the end, I find the sport very equitable.


I was thinking more in terms of the reduced drag on the boat resulting from a higher water line with a light weight paddler in it.

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

  • photofr
  • photofr's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • SURFSKI: K1 560M - 560x43.8 / K2 Viper - 650x56
More
5 years 10 months ago #26670 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
Yes, you are right, but it goes both ways:
Lighter paddler would have (in theory) less water drag on the boats, but they we will have far less muscle mass.

Another way of looking at it is:
Heavier paddler will have a bit more water drag on their skis, but they will benefit from huge muscle MASS!

In biking, I always felt I had a huge advantage when going uphill. I don't feel I have much an advantage on skis, and actually feel like I have to train so much on technique just to keep up. My biggest fear on skis isn't really the huge Russian Mountains... it's the super tall and super skinny ultra marathon looking paddlers that I will fear the most.

Note to self:
Oscar never scared me - he's just in a different category :)

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

More
5 years 10 months ago #26677 by Aurelius
Replied by Aurelius on topic NELO 560M Review

photofr wrote: Yes, you are right, but it goes both ways:
Lighter paddler would have (in theory) less water drag on the boats, but they we will have far less muscle mass.

Another way of looking at it is:
Heavier paddler will have a bit more water drag on their skis, but they will benefit from huge muscle MASS!

In biking, I always felt I had a huge advantage when going uphill. I don't feel I have much an advantage on skis, and actually feel like I have to train so much on technique just to keep up. My biggest fear on skis isn't really the huge Russian Mountains... it's the super tall and super skinny ultra marathon looking paddlers that I will fear the most.

Note to self:
Oscar never scared me - he's just in a different category :)


A local Stellar dealer tried to sell me their carbon fiber layup, claiming that it would be faster because it sits higher due to its light weight. That's what got me thinking that a lighter paddler would have an even bigger advantage in speed. It would be interesting to run some experiments to see how a 25 lb carbon ski performs on flat water compared to its 32 lb fiberglass version. If you include a 180 paddler like me as part of the total weight, the difference between them may not be enough to notice.

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

More
5 years 10 months ago #26684 by nell
Replied by nell on topic NELO 560M Review
In your example, 205 total weight compared with 212. So 7 more lbs of water displacement, or roughly 3% difference. I remember once reading in a paper somewhere that that would translate to about 0.3% more surface area drag or some small fraction of the difference - so not really anything you could feel, or measure on your gps at steady state speed.

As for paddler weight and advantages, one only has to look at lightweight and heavyweight rowers to see that there really isn't much difference in speed over long distances.

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

  • photofr
  • photofr's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • SURFSKI: K1 560M - 560x43.8 / K2 Viper - 650x56
More
5 years 10 months ago #26687 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review
Precisely why in the end, the list of important factors will be long, before reaching body weight, body fat, body muscles. Here's a condensed list:
Surfski comfort
Paddling Technique
Downwind knowledge and technique
Ski DW maneuverability
Heart conditioning (endurance/fitness level)
State of mind
Muscles Mass

So for all smaller paddlers: "there's hope"

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

More
5 years 10 months ago #26735 by Steve Hansen
Replied by Steve Hansen on topic NELO 560M Review
Ludo, I'm 6'2" but very long legged (35-36 inch inseam) Do you think I would fit in the 'M' version? I know the only way is to try but hoping you can tell me if it hopeless or not.

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

More
5 years 10 months ago #26739 by AdrianBruce
Replied by AdrianBruce on topic NELO 560M Review
Mr Nelo will know the boat much better than me, because at 33-34" inseam I couldn't even get close to fitting in the 560M. Biggest disappointment of the year, because the boat would have been ideal for me otherwise. :(
The following user(s) said Thank You: Steve Hansen

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

  • photofr
  • photofr's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • SURFSKI: K1 560M - 560x43.8 / K2 Viper - 650x56
More
5 years 10 months ago #26740 by photofr
Replied by photofr on topic NELO 560M Review

Steve Hansen wrote: Ludo, I'm 6'2" but very long legged (35-36 inch inseam) Do you think I would fit in the 'M' version? I know the only way is to try but hoping you can tell me if it hopeless or not.


The 560M is specifically built for lighter paddlers, AND shorter paddlers. If you fall into that category, you may just fall in love with this Elite ski. HOWEVER, I do believe your legs are (for once) a little too long. :)

Perhaps you paddle with you knees well-bent, but even then, I would really try the M before purchasing it. You may find that the (standard) 560 will be perfectly suited for you. You'll have almost all the benefits.

For REF.:
The (standard) 560 foot well is too long for me without modifications - even at its smallest setting. It's probably not surprising, since I am rather short, equipped with perhaps abnormal short legs, and to top it all: I like to have my knees bent more than most.

Ludovic
(Brittany, France)

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

Protected by R Antispam