NELO 560M Review

I am placing my bet on the following, and in that order:
A new double surfski
A PE shorter ski
A 550

I wrote the 550 because: a 550x47 "needle nose" seems so logical, there isn't one on the market, I'd love to try one, and I want one

...with "needle nose" you mean a reverse bow as the Olympic kayaks?

photofr wrote: I am placing my bet on the following, and in that order:
A new double surfski
A PE shorter ski
A 550

I wrote the 550 because: a 550x47 "needle nose" seems so logical, there isn't one on the market, I'd love to try one, and I want one

@OSS, I guess photo_fr means the "needle nose" the 560M has when looking from above
"The curves are beautiful: essentially, a needle nose ski with a “fat” behind for added stability exactly where you’d need it (behind you)."
www.surfski.info/forum/2-announcements/1...0m-review.html#26380

with regard to the Cinco nose (see also their new C1 SIX line ) there was an interview from June:
"SN: Some surfskis are beginning to show up with reverse bows. At the same time, Nelo has debuted reverse bows on their sprint boats, but not the surfski. Why did you opt to keep the traditional bows over the reverse?
OC: The Cinco was the first reverse bow but it isn’t about the bow it is all about the hull. We will do some experiments with that concept at a later stage. "
www.surfskinews.com/blog-2016-news-jun-t...he-new-nelo-surfskis

Back in the day, when I was surfing, we called "needle nose" anything that was quite narrow. I guess it stayed with me, and I do feel it fits perfectly when describing the current Nelo skis.

Some people might be a little nervous when they first see a 560M, but they will just have to try it in big open ocean conditions. It works very well.

Reverse bows?
I wouldn't mind trying one ... ONE DAY... but I am a little worried with my area's seaweed problem that isn't going away any time soon. Just to be clear though: Reverse bow is not what I mean by "needle-nose".

now, in that case, these DIY-Surfskis would have quite a needle nose, too ....

see
i.imgur.com/8Ut6kwk.jpg
or
i.imgur.com/kxAfzEj.jpg

btw. great pics of wider hull behind seat in combo with needle nose, cool bailer opening location:
www.kayakdemar.org/index.php?topic=16751.msg230125#msg230125

Interesting homemade surfskis, for sure.
One drawback is the weight: DIY could mean a great shape, but its weight could be prohibitive.

Hi Ludovic,
regarding "reverse" bow, I paddle the OCEAN skis with the hybrid bow now for 1 year, 4-5 times a week, on the ocean, in the harbour, on lakes and rivers...not once did the bow catch any weed!

Maybe it's a real problem with the typical Nelo bow (kayaks), I am sure they got great experience during the Olympics.

Cheers

compared to a prepreg 9 kg may be, but vacuum bagging is no rocket science and also applied by many Freds in the sheds

Weight prohibitive? I know what you are saying, but imo don't underestimate these diy guys and for the pun of it: those paddling +15kg skis are not legal?

However, I am often impressed with all these DIY surfski guys laminating,vacuum bagging stuff in the shed ... marketing spin doctors would squeeze out seven world wonders out of each of their ideas, which these folks tend to not even mention at all

How do you think skis started out, they were all hand made from polystyrene and were super light. CAD was still a pipe dream at that time. The solid polystyrene skis perform way better than the hollow ones in my opinion, it is just to expensive to hand shape and finish them off, and then if you get it wrong all that work is wasted.

That is great news regarding reverse bows that do not catch weed on the OSS. My experience of crafts catching weed is rather limited to two things: SUP and SUP fins.

I spent one year figuring out fins for my 17'6 x 23" board: nearly all fins caught weed. After thinking that my problem was solved, I entered a race in a flat water river to find leave accumulation on my fin (nightmares, really).

The second problem I found was a bow on my 14x23 Sprint board: another board that I love, but a bow that picks up all sort of weed.

I haven't tried Nelo's cinquo yet, and I haven't tried the OSS either. Both would be a great experience for me.

OSS wrote: Hi Ludovic,
regarding "reverse" bow, I paddle the OCEAN skis with the hybrid bow now for 1 year, 4-5 times a week, on the ocean, in the harbour, on lakes and rivers...not once did the bow catch any weed!

Maybe it's a real problem with the typical Nelo bow (kayaks), I am sure they got great experience during the Olympics.

Cheers

We must come from different schools then... because all the prototypes and plugs that I have ever tested ended up in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 kilos. We once worked on a surfski that we ruled out as slower based on a stopwatch's result. However, we will never know if that shape excelled, mainly because of its prohibitive weight.

Since 1987, I have tried a lot of different skis, and a quite a few innovative designs: but I have never come across a single hand-shaped ski that came in at even 11 kilos. Perhaps this isn't too important for most testers, but with my featherweight, I feel that the weight of a ski can be a huge handicap.

Ranga wrote: How do you think skis started out, they were all hand made from polystyrene and were super light. CAD was still a pipe dream at that time. The solid polystyrene skis perform way better than the hollow ones in my opinion, it is just to expensive to hand shape and finish them off, and then if you get it wrong all that work is wasted.

I still think that 12-15kg diy surfskis are valid boats to paddle weightwise though, as some commercial models are in that weight range, too

btw. from this site, sub 15kg epoxy glassed foam prototype ...
"GENiUS 20 THE STORY
Some stats of the “foamie”.
Polystyrene weighed 3,0kg.
Finished boat weighed 14,1kg (complete, including set up)"
www.surfski.info/forum/19-boats/6702-the-genius-story.html

You are right: if people can produce DIY surfskis at around 12 kilos, possibilities become endless. There are indeed some cool concepts being developed out there.

On the other hand, it's a balancing act. I feel that Polystyrene foam constructions are not very durable. In my experience having owned countless SUPs within the last two years, and paddling 1000's of km on them, I find that their Styrofoam construction is somewhat week, marks way too easily with my paddle, and quickly look old.

I have hit my Nelo 560M countless times with my paddle, and about 1200 kilometers later, it still looks brand new: one single minor paint chip that occurred week #1 in heavier surf.

Obviously, I am not to keen on using Styrofoam.

You must be extremely fit...100 kms per week on your ski plus 1000's of kms on SUPs...I wish I had the time....

It involves a lot of compromise, and sometimes finding the middle-ground.
I try to average 80 to 100 km per week on a surfski, and 60 to 90 km on a SUP. I'd like to think that my heart is in great shape, but I otherwise bare the weight of a broken-down-old-man.

We just finished eating the birthday cake: a french delight with something like 7 layers of different chocolates. I think it will take about 3 weeks to completely work that thing off, because let's not kid ourselves: as we age, we must enjoy the outdoors, so we might as well lov' em.

Guys, there was a thorough review here: www.performancepaddling.net/nelo_560_2016model.html of the new Nelo 560 and the results surprised me quite a bit. The speed comparison chart shows that the top speed of the new Nelo 560 is more than 2,5 km/h higher than the Nelo Ocean Ski, which is an inch narrower than the new 560.

I can't quite understand how that is possible, that a boat so wide (usually skis of 44-45 cm wide do not yield elite performance) would show such extraordinary speed. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this? I would assume that like on some old K1s the triangular shape of the hull means that the ski is super-narrow in the wetted area and the surface of the boat that creates drag is effectively much smaller. Yet that would mean much less primary stability, so it is not that, because the new 560 is said to be more stable than the Ocean Ski. So, what is the key to this increased speed and stability 'miracle'?

Personally, I find the V14 very fast as far as elite skis are concerned. Having said that, when I compared my V14 experience with the Nelo 560M, I also found:
The 560M was more stable, and yield faster average speeds for me on flat water. Most importantly, it accelerated much faster, for me. Essentially, what I found with my own experience and comparisons go hand in hand with the Pros at Performance Paddling: www.performancepaddling.net/nelo_560_2016model.html
The only difference between what they are saying and what I felt is in regards to Nelo’s older Ocean Ski and the V14 – where I felt the V14 to be MUCH FASTER, and overall more efficient.

What makes a ski more stable than a V14, yet faster than a V14? Short answer: trade secrets 
Longer (possible) Answer:
The 560M has a larger flat area on its hull than the V14. It’s all relative, because that flat area is very subtle on the 560M, yet nearly non-existent on the V14 (the V14 is rather round). The result of that flatter area should actually make the 560M slower, not faster… and it most likely does in fact make the 560M slower. Fortunately, that’s not the only difference.

The 560M’s bow is much narrower: that tells me “more efficiency” and therefore more speed.

Last thing I will mention is the ski length. Based on a brilliant student of engineering who did his Thesis on surfskis, he’s found that surfskis were too long. His paper was quite long, so I’ll try to paraphrase a little:
5.60 meters happens to be faster than a hull 6.40 meters long - for paddlers under 100 kilos. The acceleration effects are well documented.

As true as it may be, to me, the biggest difference rests in the 560M’s ability to accelerate really REALLY fast. All fine and dandy for sprints in flat water, but the results are mind-blowing when it comes to the 560M’s ability to catch runs with faster acceleration.

To really see the difference in overall speed: take one of the new 560 on a BIG DAY and compare your overall times with another elite ski (V14, Ozo, Elite S, Uno Max or similar). Based on your ability to surf, you may find that longer skis may not always be faster with YOU on it.

one day, one should organise an independent test panel and have all "elite" skis tested...looking at 5 different webpages, I can identify 5 different skis being "the fastest"...

We (OCEAN) think that our OSS1 (650 x 43.5) and OSS2 (625 x 43) are both extremely fast, somewhere around the V14, Uno Max, etc...but a lot more stable which allows most paddlers to focus on their stroke, hence extra speed.
Still, I can't tell you if I am right or wrong because it is different for every paddler (height, weight, fitness, technique, etc) and at the end, speed depends on the "engine".

Originally, and when moving to France, my intent was to have 15 or so skis for people to test. The idea came to me when I saw the body of water available: flat water in front of the house, wide open ocean about 900 meters out. That would have allowed anyone to:
- truly test a ski in conditions they favored.
- compare skis on the same day - with them on it.

I keep building bigger ski racks, but I am far from reaching my goal.

In the meantime, a very close resemblance of what I had in mind is a private training and testing center in Australia, with two retired World Class paddlers: Performance Paddling. Seemingly, they allow customers to test different skis.

Their latest in house tests: They seem to have placed a lot of work in comparing 7 different skis. Scroll down and take a look at their graph: www.performancepaddling.net/nelo_560_2016model.html

Since there’s plenty of info available on the net from top paddlers testing skis, I wanted to provide something new: a down to earth review from a different sort of paddler: lightweight, older, and somewhere in the low end of the middle of the pack. I compared skis that I have tested and spent quite a bit of time on, hoping that it would at least give the reader an idea of what could be expected when using a 560M.

Instead of saying "the 560M is fast" - I tried to give an insight based on what I felt.
Faster than the Spark but not quite as stable.
Accelerates faster than a V14, yet quite more stable than a V14.
I even defied people to find a ski with this much downwind maneuverability.

There’s still no complete substitute for trying a ski yourself, but perhaps my review motivated couple of paddlers into trying the range of Nelo surfskis.

Sadly, I can’t compare the OSS to this new group of Nelo skis because I have not tried (or seen) any of the OSS. I am now more curious than ever, and wonder: why did the people of Performance Paddling not test the OSS range, or at least one of the OSS? Their feedback would have been interesting, even if I would still need to try one myself.

Hi Ludovic,
thanks for your comprehensive answer.
There is a lot of "politics" going on here in Australia (in the surf ski industry), hence a Nelo paddler can't really praise a different brand (Cameron represents Nelo). So, still not really an "independent" test - could be biased (no personal attack against Cameron at all - I only met him once and he gave me great, detailed feedback on our skis).

We had other paddlers testing our skis (two of the top 5 worldwide) but they are all under contract with different brands (we are just a small, local brand at this stage) - they would never dare to give a written verdict, especially if it would give the thumbs up for our products.

But saying this, I actually plan to sometimes join Cameron's (performance paddling) squats this spring/summer on these days when I am down in Sydney (our dealer "paddlecraft" is located just next to them). Maybe I can convince Cameron to conduct a full review of our products.

Cheers