Surprisingly impressive and significant performance upgrades built into this board. For dedicated swell riding this is my new top choice.
2 Likes
Is this board the same construction as the new Sunova Casey Downwind sup?
Not sure about that. I haven’t seen any of the new Aviators. I have one of the old versions but there’s a chance one of the local shop is getting some new Aviators in this month.
Curious… In your opinion, when would you choose the Carver shape over the Pilot? … Volume aside - since you have 85 Carver & 65ltr Pilot would a 65ltr Pilot be better than your Carver?
I actually replaced my 85l Carver with a 77l Carver that is 5’11" for this year to try it as just a slightly thinner and lighter setup. Still need time to report thoughts on that one.
However:
I think the Carver shape excels for people who want to jump (rockered hull), DW with a little more of a classic style (not especially aggressive) and especially if you want to ride smaller foils, I think the Carver deck is really welcoming to flowy rail to rail movement at high speeds.
Summary: Carver is a better all-rounder, welcoming to riders who are new to narrow boards, allows rapid progression, not overly sensitive to rider inputs.
The Pilot however: I think if the volume were the same it would have a better low end with the flatter hull. If you are really pushing your rail to rail riding hard and have trouble catching rails, the Pilot will be better than the Carver. Larger foils are more enjoyable on the Pilot since the deck is more aggressive. If you want to go narrower than 20" I would say the Pilot deck shape is mandatory.
Summary: Better for the high performance rider who doesn’t jump and is looking to push their limits with a lot of rail to rail sensitivity.
Interesting - Thanks Brian.
No problem. Forgot to add that yes, I now prefer the Pilot over the Carver unless I am riding in under 20 knots.
Do you have any more details on this?
I don’t, but I ordered one. Will post an update when I get it. Can’t really find much info other than the one YouTube video with Casey talking about it. I got the 8’4 x 18.5
Interested in your thoughts on your custom dimensions. You went a touch wider/thicker/shorter? than a stock pilot mid for the same volume.
Once in general mid-length size ranges I wonder how much difference there is between the shorter/thinner/wider mid-lengths and the longer/thicker/narrower versions.
Guesses when moving to the narrow side:
- Narrow versions pump worse
- Takeoff easier
- Rail to rail better due to weight distribution
- Rail to rail worse due to available foot placement
- Rail to rail worse due to thickness acting like a longer mast
- Boards stays out of your way turning with respect to roll, but get’s in the way with respect to pitch
Think weight distribution may have a bigger effect on turning than foot placement or thickness.
Also wonder if the additional takeoff performance still holds at -30L and -40L for a winger. Idk if it’s needed for me at -17L, but considering going down in volume and trying to compensate takeoff with more narrow dims.
Ive got a custom (non Sunova, but fairly similar shape) coming at 6’, 19", 60L (-20). Very eager to see how much I gain in takeoff and roll for an additional 1’ length and 2" less width vs my daily driver at the same volume. I generally ride strapped, and will be using this for more surf style unstrapped.
1 Like
[quote="I_draw_boxes, post:10, topic:8689”]
Interested in your thoughts on your custom dimensions. You went a touch wider/thicker/shorter? than a stock pilot mid for the same volume.
Once in general mid-length size ranges I wonder how much difference there is between the shorter/thinner/wider mid-lengths and the longer/thicker/narrower versions.
[/quote]
When I order gear I prefer to make small changes to the dims, not large ones (the only large change was volume). This allows me to isolate variables a little better so I can learn from specific differences as opposed to changing every single dim dramatically which makes it difficult to compare. Prior to ordering this board I felt like the Carver was perfection and the Pilot Mid wasn’t released. When I sent them the dims they told me there were updating the Pilot and adding the Mid but I didn’t have access to those numbers, they just asked if I wanted to try the new shape and I said yes.
So, I went:
20” wide because the Carver at 20” was my version of perfection.
5’9” because I knew I was dropping liters and figured an inch shorter would be worth trying.
Thickness wasn’t a choice, but a result of the liter decision.
I have a 90l Aviator 6’6” at 18” wide
Sold my 85l 5’10” x 20” Carver
Got a new 77l 5’11”x20” Carver
Got the Aviator at 65.7l 5’9”x20” to give me a relatively even spacing 90l, 77l, 65.7l set of boards to compare notes on.
As far as your narrow guesses go:
- I find weight to be the main variable for pump.
- Narrower board takeoff is easier in light conditions but not by much vs 20” at the same liters. It’s dramatically easier in extreme conditions.
- Rail to rail benefits are minimal lower than 20” for me and are actually hindered if the deck shape isn’t right. You’re just losing the necessary width to give powerful inputs from your feet which is part of what I mean when I say “flowy” riding. When I ride the Aviator at 18” wide I can get the same rail to rail experience but I have my toes wrapped off the edge of the deck on my rear foot and my lead foot runs parallel to the board length on the other edge of the pad.
- There’s thickness pros and cons for sure. I consider my riding height to be relatively fixed after all of my time on the water. As such, thinner boards give me better rail to rail clearance and fewer touchdowns but on a 75cm mast I breach more. Thicker boards like my Aviator 18” almost never breach for me but I have far more touchdowns due to the thickness and boxier shape. At 6’6” on that board I still have zero issues with pitch.
I think the largest impacts on turns are width and deck shape. I think anything under 20” without the proper deck shape becomes extremely limited in performance.
Takeoff benefits should continue to hold vs other shapes at those liters but it’s hard to tell by how much. I see very little benefit in lowered liters for my riding style if the shape is perfect and don’t foresee myself pursuing negative liter volume boards in the future for anything other than weight reduction which is very low on my priority list. I am very dedicated to the use of smaller sails and I am yet to find any value added to my riding in going lower volume if it forces me to use a sail larger than 3m. If I were to order another -20 liter board I would consider going dramatically longer 6’5”x19” but most likely would go the other direction, another notch shorter. Probably 5’7”x19” and just commit to it as a stronger wind board.
1 Like
Here’s my Aviator review if you want to scrounge around on it. Not using it for paddling. I think the dims for the new Aviators will be better with the paddle. Hull changed for sure, not sure if the deck changed based on what Sunova published.