AR : 14
From what I Heard, 2 additional size should be released and dedicated super small tails.
1 Like
Only one other size currently contemplated, 950
4 Likes
looks amazing, ar 14, best construction… how does the stall speed compare to code r though? code r 770 stall speed is similar to the 850-980S, so very low compared to the number.
if the stall speed of the afs ultra 750 is like the silk 850-1050 then it would be pretty cool for prone. but id be worried it is like between the silk 650 - 850 as the 750 name suggests.
I saw a 950 prototype, but I heard it might be reduced down to 900.
I also heard about a smaller size, like 650 ; but later.
I’ll probably get myself a 900 + 75 UHM for light conditions where I want to focus on efficiency.
I’m on Lift when conditions are on.
I’ll never get why people would go with such high AR for surfing.
You want 102 wide ?
I use AR 8 wings for surfing (Silk at the moment) and 10 when I want additional glide (Lift 120HA, 150HAX). I would not go with these high AR wings because you need <700cm² to turn.
3 Likes
I’m with you on this one.
Although - I used to surf foil the 800HA (13AR) and I gotta say it does have it’s appeal since you gain so much more speed - glide & pumping and still can crank some nice turns, yeah, they are more open and draw different lines, nothing compared to the SILK (which is what I’m riding now for surfing 850 and 650), but still fun and has it’s place in some kind of waves that are just long soft rollers. For chest and over high waves, definetly the go to it’s the 650 SILK no questions asked!
As the quantity of foils I can get it’s limited, I’m considering selling my 850 SILK to replace it for the 750 ULTRA since Downwinding in proper conditions for me has it’s priority, and prone foiling in medium to smaller conditions can get it done and pay the price on the turnings with the 750 (hopefully, based on the 800HA experience) - maybe pairing it with a Silk HA38 stab (it’s my understanding that an ULTRA Stab will be released too with full DW focus).
All this having in consideration I alreday have the 650 SILK which I can surf foil whenever there’s the slight enough power - and the 1100HA it’s the mini tiny rollers super glider and DW in small conditions!
So I get both @Kezia and @Meow points!
BTW, I can only suppose the 750 will be more likely to feel like the 850 in the stall speed due to the 102cm span. maybe?
Definetly so much math and equations involved in the decision processes 
The section plays such an important role along side span with respect to low end, so we just won’t really know where they put the cursor until some ride reports and comparisons start trickling in. I am keenly following as I’ve always thought the killer application for tubercles was improving the low end characteristics on a really high aspect, thin section foil.
The main target of the ULTRA as I’ve been told - it’s too obtain the best performance with average speed as top perfomance indicator - this translate for me, in that it must be an outstanding glider that mantains speed at low end (if that even makes sense) and keeping the top speed for longer -
Any first impressions of the Ultra?
1 Like
That’s helpful. Strange about the issues with the cedrus (also unfortunate for me since i have a cedrus). I’m assuming everything was sufficiently tightened? Going to be interesting to hear how it works on the afs 75cm. Given the cord and thickness of this mast one would assume its less stiff than the cedrus
1 Like
Disturbing…. Considering the Cedrus was very recently being discussed as the ultimate solution to the stiffness/drag issue. Then I happened to get out of the water the same time as Gwen a few weeks ago After a downwinder and mentioned his setup was the most efficient I’d seen (AFS 75cm UHM, not sure the Foil). He said the flex in the mast was hindering performance for him, and I shouldn’t even consider it.
Now what?
What speeds were you going when experiencing that? I got a cedrus surf because I was favoring glide over speed, and not interested in going over, say, 16-18. So I’m on k2 and trying armie ha2 as well so not speed demons.
which mast did he say the flex was hindering, the AFS UHM or Cedrus?
1 Like
Was the AFS 75cm which has about the lowest drag specs on the market. Something like 12.8 mm thickness, and 100 mm cord. Probably fine for lighter folks.
I’m finding that connection fitment and movement and also maybe fuse flex are equal to mast flex in importance. Im finding that very few of the carbon fuses are really up to the task esp unibody stuff) and metal fuses (for the female side) have that superior fitment. Honestly the reason I didn’t go with the AFS is the fuse looked thin at the attachment point. If I had to guess this experience with the Cedrus was either adapter fitment or a case with a small fast HA being too fast for the Cedrus Surf and the Wind would have been more appropriate.
Oddly enough, Gwen told me that the efficiency of the 75 mast was a “must have” for the pure HA wings.
I have the 85 uhm mast and have zero flex issues with it on the silks (haven’t used it with the pure ha). I also have the 75 and it has some flex with the big pure ha wings but I don’t notice it with the silks. I wouldn’t say either of them is flexy.
1 Like
I love the idea, but a system designed to work together always performed better for me.
1 Like
@Bwalnut I was going to stay out of this but I’m tired of seeing you turn every forum thread into an unrelated Cedrus-bashing discussion without any justifiable opportunity for us to solve your problems or even understand what the problem is? When you first took delivery, you were absolutely stoked with the mast on your CloudIX setup. Then you tried Code, and were frustrated with the loose fit, which you immediately attributed to our adapter, until you finally found another Code mast that actually had a worse fit. Then you proceed to bash Code. Then you move to AFS, and seem totally happy with the mast, actually posting higher speeds than the OEM options, with admittedly equivalent stiffness. Then you get super frustrated with our Mike’s Lab demo adapter because it doesn’t accommodate as long of bolts as the OEM mast, even though it doesn’t need to. I’m just really confused by what exactly happened, and what we did to deserve this treatment? I’m sorry but “paying full price” for gear does not give you the right to bash brands in a public forum. Especially brands like mine, which is extremely customer-focused and basically bends over backwards to solve problems. But this really wouldn’t be fair to any brand, and I highly doubt that this was the original vision that Erik had when he started the forum.
I know my customer service partner has reached out to you to address some of your unfounded claims of deteriorating stiffness of your mast. I have no idea how you test your masts or even what your attached picture is showing with respect to stiffness. In 7 years of making masts with this architecture, we have NEVER had reports of fatigue or reduced stiffness. The pioneering design with the aluminum mount eliminates the type of stress that can lead to fatigue in composites. Many of our clients are still riding the launch edition classic (circa 2018) to this day. Evolution is even stiffer and stronger. So if you would have just given us the opportunity to address your concerns, I’m sure we could have taken an engineering approach to solving the problem or at least identifying it first. To be honest, if the mast is truly damaged, seems a bit unethical to me to try and sell it to someone else.
Please stop with these posts. We have offered to test your mast in the same fixture we use to characterize mast stiffness of new masts, and are awaiting your response. We’ve even offered to pick it up from you at AWSI. If you have time to continue typing these comments, you have time to respond to my team. These posts are quite damaging to me, my business, and my employees, all of whom live here in the PNW and are part of your community. We have many clients right now waiting on masts who are now reading these comments and potentially questioning their decision, which is unfair to all of us. We have never received feedback like this, and we stand by our products. We see these other brands as partners, not competitors, and even guys like James Casey and Kane share the CAD of their connections and promote Cedrus. You as a consumer have every right to spend your money how you wish, and if you prefer to ride OEM masts with your foils, we respect and support that decision. But you do not have the right to publicly bash brands like this. We have a lot of clients who purchase Cedrus specifically because they want a universal mast and we have worked extremely hard to give Evolution Cedrus the same performance as even the best OEM masts, while remaining universal, and by all accounts have succeeded. So please give us the opportunity to address your concerns, or at the very least stop turning completely unrelated forum threads into an opportunity to complain about Cedrus.
8 Likes
I dunno, I read it differently.
The negative posts came through quite suddenly and clearly from Bryan, as very negative and from my perspective a gradual but then severe change of perception on the performance, and completely against the flow (moaning? there is literally only one mention of that word on the entire forum).
For a large brand this type of drastically negative review would be fine, but for cutting edge small brand that is innovating (literally creating the future of the sport, for more financially minded private equity types to benefit from) I think it is justifiable to expect this change of heart to be more fully elaborated (it isn’t), and allow response from Cedrus to address the issue.
Fwiw, I love that the Cedrus MO is to jump into the forums, I’ve said it before, he shouldn’t as it surely causes more stress than is possible to justify, but it benefits the consumer in that the bleeding edge product is directly informed rather than just something that has followed the herd like you see with North and Duotone. I see it as truth seeking, and to hell with the corporate BS.
1 Like