Endless discussion of this online and on facebook. What is most interesting to me is how many board design experts disagree wholeheartedly with each other on optimal bottom design, concave vs flat vs vee. Being somewhat cynical, what I take from that is no one really knows for sure and, most likely, that the difference is minimal to the point of not being significant in most conditions for most riders.
For concaves, this a very common design on surfboards and SUPS, but as I understand it, the benefits happen once you hit planing speeds. On a foil, planing speed means your board isn't in the water any more. So does it help? Dunno, I'm not about to call Armstrong a kook who doesn't know what he's doing, because of he puts deep concave on all his boards.
I found this interview with Gunnar B quite enlightening:
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/wi ... fay3ZUlDA/
Advance to 53:30, where he talks about experimenting with different boards. He decided to try his old kite race board and found he was able to get up in 5kt less wind than any of his sup foil or wing foil boards. Why? Those boards are designed to for maximum acceleration, get planing asap and to disengage the board from the water -- doing that quicker is the difference between winning and losing. Limited power to get quick release: flat tail with mast way back (picture doing a wheelie), vee nose with prominent rocker. A first-hand report from someone who is clearly an expert rider and it thoughtful about design ... holds a lot of weight for me.
Seems to me we are starting see divergence from sup foilboards to wing specific boards. When you think of the means of acceleration and propulsion, they have quite different properties, so that makes sense. The same specialization happened from the early days of SUP foiling on a shorter surf SUP with tracks added, to a SUP foil specific board.