This is a great thread, only now just went through it.
As primary prone and then downwind, I am all for stiffness. My Armstrong 8’11 was sold because of how bloody unpleasant it was to ride, so much yawing around with all that inertia.
Sign me up for better. I also haven’t moved my foil much, and could go on 2 inches of adjustment if a known variable for a brandh.
Does mean that people changing brands will be a problem, but maybe we are at the point where brand = board + foil. Kinda back to the start again.
The generic foiling podcast episodes summarised at the top of this thread from the Slingshot crew (Edo, Ken,Kyle etc) are super interesting. I just listened to both. Needless to say if I was spending money, I’d buy that new @JudoChop board and get it with a tuttle (judo as in the sport? I guessed maybe rugby but judo would make sense ). Kudos to Slingshot for having a go at this with you guys. Love it, especially considering the risk they took with the screwless fuse. I’m also sold on the hollow boards. Currently I have my scientific assistant designing a hollow board skeleton inspired by this.
I would entirely disagree because not once have I ever heard of anything designed for or by a wakefoiler. It’s mass market consumer buying a rebranded package who doesn’t really care. Example with pro foilers riding foils from before this forum started… Performance clearly low on the priority list. (there is no pro wake foiling content afaict? literally a non-entity from media perspective other than Armstrong)
Just adding my perspective as a freestyle kitefoiler, which I believe applies to wing foil as well.
I agree that the current 2-track standard has its disadvantages, but a Deep Tuttle box is simply too deep for kitefoil or wake-foil boards (though less of an issue on larger wing boards).
I dislike having screws on the deck; they limit footstrap placement and are annoying during foot swaps. I’ve also had major compatibility issues between brands regarding track/strap placement and the center of lift. Adjustability is essential, so long tracks are a huge plus.
One unmentioned advantage of the 2-track system over the Tuttle is load distribution. With the latter, hard landings concentrate stress in a very small area, while tracks provide more surface area to handle the load.
The Radix is a great concept. It’s shallower than a Tuttle, offers more adjustment, and is easier to mount than both a Tuttle or a double US box. Time will tell if it survives the abuse of freestyle.
So if we look at market case for those of us who prefer multi discipline and simplicity track five the greatest flexibility. I could literally have one mast to ride multiply boards with multiple foil types and adjust for each. So a bit more to explore.Consider the only drag from the track is right before your first pump. It’s not there for the entire time you are riding. Next the mast itself creates no more drag than a piece of wire and accounts for such a small amount of drag that it’s not really worth the debate. What is worth discussing ventilation of mast. Carve hard and a skinny mast ventilates, go fast and hit the turn at speed and the mast can ventilate.
Finally yaw or torsional stiffness is a continuing issue as opposed to just bend. Uhm is great when direction of bend is known. It is so much more difficult with torsional or yaw. In order to compensate more material is used and weight increases to create torsional stiffness.
So if I have to spend over 5k for two masts on Tuttle and one plate for me to ride boat, wing, and dw I might want something a bit more cost effective and robust say aluminum.
One other note, the boat industry does dictate more than all other disciplines. A single wake monster is easy 6 figures. Boat generates billions as opposed to a few million for all other foil combined. Any toys that make it look like the fun thing get pushed by riders who have way more backing than the entire rest of the foil community. Sorry for this one but it’s a cold truth.
In the end I want more ways to be on foil than one discipline. I want robust gear with value for my money and I want performance that is in line with value. I want a Camaro not a Ferrari
The wake boat industry argument is very much mainland-US centric, and not that much part of the landscape in Europe, where a big chunk of the foil industry comes from. They’re not going to dictate anything in terms of designs. Australia/NZ are a bit in between, also major players in the industry, and there is some level of a wake boat culture, but not like the US.
If you want to involve $$$$, maybe the biggest roadblock for a come back of the Tuttle would be the FoilDrive
Tuttle design isn’t for everyone and certainly has some downsides. For racing, getting on foil is very important. Tuttle boards has much less drag and allow for smaller wings to be used, which are often faster… generally smaller wings take more speed to get foiling and the drag from the plate can be enough to make it impossible to get up.
The Tuttle box gets its strength and stiffness by connecting it to both the deck and bottom laminates while the plate mast is just pulling/pushing against the bottom skin itself. This is generally the weakest direction for composites. The peel strength of the composite with the foam is a key aspect of how tracks are installed and the reason why there were so many failures on early boards. Most of the tracks now are tied into the deck with PVC or carbon shafts or something. The Tuttle inherently has significantly more structure if installed properly even though the surface area exposure is less on the bottom.
This is what I have seen for track mounts. There is way more total area connected to a board than a Tuttle. More area vertically and horizontally. While these are older videos I capture pictures showing a Tuttle and a track install. I am saying that by having solid depth plus length and width the foil track has a better connection to the board due to contacted surface area. The flex comes from the board not either box type as the board material is less stiff. A brick wall that is one foot deeper but without a footer will fail much quicker than one with a nice hefty footer. It’s basic construction using any material. Look at piling for a dock they do not have a footer and require massive depth and amounts driven for stability.
Boards are limited by thickness. They have much more space for length and width. Bigger footer is more strength when depth is an issue.
Thanks for listening to a different view. A forum like this is where we should kick these things around!
there are certainly benefits to tracks vs tuttle as well (the most obvious being the prevalence of existing tracks setups).
you sound like a candidate to stick with tracks, and that’s cool.
But foiling thus far has been about the aggregation of a bunch of smaller gains to create a better whole; many of which have, and will continue to, cause obsolesce of certain components. Tuttle is an easy win for gains in a few areas, at the expense of compatibility with a current standard. It’s up to you what’s worthwhile choice.
As for stiffness & strength, I don’t think any experienced board builder (even if exclusively pro-tracks for any other reasons) would argue that tracks are stronger or stiffer for the same weight. It is not based on surface area, but on the mechanism of attachment.
NOOOOOO! I had to go hunt down that video for the track installation. The screen shot was cringe worthy. That video is showing a set of tracks installed with virtually NO support running from the upper deck to the lower deck sitting on “low density foam.” I would estimate100% chance of failure in any real-world, random abuse application.
If you look through the comments @FiberglassSupply added:
“So back to the question of tying into the deck. On this particular board I anticipated I would surf it in waves up to chest to head high, rollers most likely and not breaking. This board does have a center stringer and the EPS is 2lb density . . . . .
If it is going to be used in applications that will generate higher stresses (i.e. wind foiling or surfing large waves) you may want to anchor to deck or switch to a Tuttle style fin box. Also if the board is built with 1lb density foam and or stringerless you may want to anchor to the deck.
So I think where I really end on all of this is why did we abandon Tuttle only to come back to it? I have my suspicions but I would like the community to weigh in on why?
One other thought, I wonder what someone like beta foils would have to say about track vs Tuttle. At 2.1 meters it is likely the largest span out there and likely has torsional force that is quite intense because of a dual boom to plate setup. I have ridden one and if you turn even a little it takes full body weight to come out. That’s a lot of leverage against a plate.
Tuttle has no (or limited with some new variants) forward and back adjustment. The reason for this is if the slot was 300mm long then it would open up and be less stiff than a track system.
In the beginning nothing worked well together and so you need heaps of adjustment. Probably less is needed now.
The perfect new system would be:
A simple design with almost no hardware built into the mast (like tracks)
Adjustable forward and back + angle.
No critical tolerances (like tracks)
Clean top board surface. No bolts on the top pad to make installation easy with the board upside down.
Easy to DIY.
Compatible with existing Tuttle systems. The Tuttle MII.
@Highliner64 I like the questions but I think the key point to your question is quote below from Chris.
My understanding: Composites (carbon) only have strength along the line of carbon strands, so pulling it from the side is the worst, which is what the track does. The amount of extra carbon you need to reinforce that box to compensate is a lot (having built a board, so much of the weight is in the box and layers of reinforcement)
it seemingly was never abandoned by high performance riders, and prone and wing expanded massively into entry level stuff where tracks ie convenience mattered, before converging back on performance gains.
My favourite anecdote: a winger I know once showed me his foil (won’t name brands, but a shitty quick release mast plate system) and I gave it a wiggle on the beach and it was visibly wobbling, he said “nah you don’t even notice it when riding”… For the average punter, none of this shit matters, which is why tracks likely will always have a market.
Since this is more about the possibility of a new design and not about which is better I believe the following is needed
A carbon plate with either a Tuttle or tracks. Plate can resemble attached picture. This maintains stiffness and dissipates load in all directions (stiff)
Using varied modulus layup will create best support for torsional stress.
By having this much surface area you remove more of the board as there is greater contact and weight applied to plate area thus removing board flex caused by a narrow contact area
This design can provide max stiffness for either style and would be more than the rest of the components i.e. mast, foil to mast, foil to fuse.
I believe used a post example before, in order to you need to go deeper to match the stability of a footer. It’s all about total contact area and then where the load is supported. In this case the rider is the biggest load against the push of the water. Dissipate the load and you don’t snap things.
there are options to get parts made. There are even manufactures making Tuttle. I say go buy it if it matches a singular need.
Fo me I want flexibility to cover multiple disciplines with minimal gear. I have stated why it’s not effective for me (and likely many others) due to cost. I am not convinced that the benefit for the average rider (me) outweigh the cost.
This is no different than aluminum vs carbon masts. $700 dollars for an aluminum that has performance so close to a $2,500 mast it’s insane. Why would I spend the extra money for a bit of performance I may not see.
There are two very distinct points of view on this.
the point is that the plate needs to be bonded to something (the rest of the outer carbon) which puts the force at right angles to the carbon weave
this is really not at all the case, repeating Chris below who clearly is as close to true expertise on this point.
The tuttle turns the board into an I-beam which is a good thing from structural perspective, where the track relies on just bonding to the bottom skin and much lesser degree the foam. Think of the EPS foam as a non-entity for strength, it’s very compressive and soft.
If I might suggest, you have 4 attachment points over 20” x 8” plate these are connected with m8 screws so you now have a much wider surface area to twist and exert force on. It’s about dissipating load.
I use this analogy, which is stronger a fence post in the dirt or one with a concrete footer? The answer is it depends on the depth of the post. A better analogy is a fence post vs a dock piling. It’s real hard to build a footer for a piling so you drive deeper to achieve the same side load bearing capability as a footer. It depends on what is needed and what is available.
Here is a simple fence post rule of thumb. A fence posts without a concrete footer will require between 1/2 and 3/8 of top side buried. In simple terms a fence 6 ft high needs 4 to 5 ft buried. Add a footer and it’s down to 1/3. This would be a 6 ft high fence with 2 ft buried and a 1 sq/ft concrete footer. A plate to mount a foil box is the same thing. So it does not matter if you use a track or Tuttle but you better extend horizontally to dissipate load. Just 4 inches of depth on a Tuttle will not be nearly enough to handle load. It’s why I showed the old videos because it made the point of material and area occupied.
Now before someone says carbon is different, remember the material used is constant so all components are carbon, foam, and glass with bolts to attach. So all of that is not part of the equation. The only thing left is area occupied and what directional space it occupies. I would really like to see a manufacturers show both styles. That’s true transparency.
I don’t see the need vs the cost of changing out 3 boards, 2 integrated foil drive masts, 1 standard mast, and 2 different foil types for a very small performance increase that cannot be quantified. I have ridden Tuttle it’s not worth the cost to change.
We don’t know what to say. It seems that whatever we say, you don’t want to listen to the point being made. It’s difficult to give much weight to your argument because you appear to lack boardbuilding experience, and you’ve disregarded several points raised by people with significant experience and respected skills in this field. For example:
Chris - professional foil (and possibly board) designer at F4
Beasho - DIY board builder who has pushed XPS design, track box installation, and ultra-light SUPs
Judoshop - amateur board designer (possibly now working with Slingshot)
Jondrum - amateur builder who did a Track vs. Tuttle comparison
We understand that you don’t like the idea of Tuttle (or similar systems), and that’s totally fine. But if you want to discuss a different concept, it might make more sense to start a new thread. This one is to talk about the pros and cons of tuttle.
). Kudos to Slingshot for having a go at this with you guys. Love it, especially considering the risk they took with the screwless fuse. I’m also sold on the hollow boards. Currently I have my scientific assistant designing a hollow board skeleton inspired by this.
