Have Axis designed themselves into a corner?

Axis foils are thick and relatively flat in the middle section. My theory is that they are like this so they can maintain the strength required for their chosen attachment system.

They haven’t followed the trend of the top performing foils on the market such as F-ONE and Lift which have a significant anhedral/dihedral profile because they can’t.

The design of the Spitfire isnt the result of creative, left field thinking, but necessity.

Thoughts? :slightly_smiling_face:


AXIS has cornered a section of the market that they want to go after and they do a really good job of it. What other brand has truly large foils that still perform decently?

The naming structure let’s me know that foiling has advanced to the level of WWII aviation. Good to see there is still lots of room for improvement ahead.


Never ridden axis…but watched one of their videos where their guy starts by claiming their big advantage in the industry was starting off with the right design - specifically the interfaces of the foils/ fuse…he then went on to talk about all the ways they have gone on to modify that original design. I still wonder if they ever realized the irony…


One Ocean and Konrad have now adopted the Axis system for their mast and wing connections. Konrad also offer alternate front wing connections for different brands.
One Ocean is offering cheaper wings though a very limited range to fit your Axis gear.
Maybe this is a way forward to an industry standard.

1 Like

I think it’s unlikely Axis would become the standard. There are so many negatives to their system. The only positive that I can think of is that the wings are slightly cheaper than monoblock type construction.

1 Like

For small brands trying to gain a foothold monoblock is probably a difficult and expensive option, where Axis is easier and cheaper to manufacture.


You could say the same about Armstrong. They have designed themselves into a corner with their weird fuse system.


It’s a tricky one eh? I think the Axis system is the best non-monoblock system in terms of stiffness and ease of use - there’s no real play in the system, it doesn’t get affected by wear and you don’t need to hammer things off. I do like the idea of a mono block wing as it gets rid of all the seam lines and bolts holes. Ideally, you’d go full Mikeslab and have the whole lower assembly one piece, but there’s obvious compromises.
In terms of being in a corner, I guess the worst case is Axis could bring out monoblock wings which fit straight into their existing mast, if that is worth the gains, but then you make everything more expensive and less modular. I do like that with a flush mount adapter, you can run other wings like Lift and use your Axis mast.
As an Axis user, I’m pretty frothy about other companies like Konrad bringing out compatible foils :slight_smile:


I placed my f one next to my friends axis and could not see the limitations
Other than the fuselage is heavy
What am I missing?

1 Like

I had Axis for a long time (and still wing the 1010 when it’s single digits wind) and I don’t think the connection is particularly bad, they just don’t prioritize surf foil design like this forum is dedicated to.

Those Konrad adaptations are cool and I hope more will come like them!


The F-ONE is monoblock construction. Originally it was just the wing, but now stabs as well. That means the whole plane is stiffer, with just one connection between the front wing and stab. Less connections means less drag. The F-ONE also has a reduced frontal profile = less drag.
Pair this up with their 14mm mast and the whole setup is like a hot knife through butter.


Stiffness of a ‘monoblock’ stab vs a bolted on stab wouldn’t even be measurable and I like being able to add a .25° shim sometimes. Same for the drag… and don’t get me started about F-one marketing, who cares about 16 year olds with messy hair :joy:

I see less frontal area in the Axis wing/fuse connection than any of the monoblock systems. No giant bulge top and bottom. Tried a number of the original ART series but didn’t care for them. Good enough glide but too low energy, too pitch and roll stable. I could do yoga up on deck.

I was holding a buddies axis foil today and it seemed heavy, which in turn made me think about the relative difficulty of making a stiff foil that only goes under the connection. Whereas Armstrong/takuma have carbon going above and below the prong. It must help.

Edit: Maybe that’s why they were so keen to move the lift forward(with spitfire), since it may be stiffer if it’s in line with the thick part of the foil forward of the fuse prong.

Sorry, edit 2: I was fondling the foil, not holding it.

100% agree. And monoblock isn’t even a word. If referring to composite structures, the proper term is “monocoque.” I agree in all of my testing and reverse engineering of nearly every foil connection over the last 10 years, one-piece fuselage/wings are not any stiffer than a properly designed bolted joint (eg. Axis). And if it’s not obvious even after the launch of Evolution, frontal area is not the primary driver for drag. It’s wetted area. 6mm screws and thinner joints do not add enough performance to justify the risk and loss of stiffness/strength. Monocoque does have other benefits; as a longtime Lift rider there are some nice features of 1 piece construction. But implying that it’s functionally superior to assemblies is invalid.


Omg Armstrong and Takuma are LEGENDARY for being the worst stiffness connections systems on the planet. I mean im just a surf foiler so I’ve never even put hands on an axis setup but I can’t imagine axis is worse.

At the end of the day the axis system is great because it’s cheap and easy to make wings for. It’s a 2 part mold unlike something like Takuma or armie with the female part which is a 3 part mold. The 2 part is a lot easier to produce.

That’s why other brands designers prototype with axis gear sometimes, why 3rd party designers make axis compatible wings, and why axis has the cheapest front wings of any of the major foil brands.


Yes I drifted into talking about the stiffness of the foil itself. After time on k2 I think it’s pretty up to par with anything. But nobody will lend me their kit to do my test.

Connections stiffness it’s really easy to assess on land. Grab the wingtip, give it a heavy wiggle and hold the connections with your other hand. If there’s movement you’ll feel it.

I’ll even put a foot on the board for leverage and put some body weight into it. There’s nothing you can do to a foil on the land with your hands that puts half as much force into it as just riding on it, not to mention abuse like running aground, jumping, etc.

Nobody else has adopted my standard test yet but you could be the one? I’m most curious about uni/lift because I’m curious if the joint does make much difference.

I try not to believe everything I think but even still looking at spitfires that straight line of max camber is right at the front of the prong. Maybe I should add a measurement on the foil itself to the above test.

I think the test is a great idea. We all have our opinions based on our own experiences, I’d love to see some data.

I’ve personally done the dry land flex test on a few brands and my experience is that the Armstrong connection (using my performance mast) has the least deflection, and I do feel it is a superior connection to a lever in socket like a lot of the other connections.

Yeah, I bought the A+ system when it came out and my experience with armie was so bad I’ll never touch the brand again!