I Found Something I can agree with the SUPAA ON Horray!

[PonoBill]

I'm surprised that anyone still cares. If I heard that someone was going to implement SUPAA rules at a race I wouldn't bother to attend. And if other factors made the race too interesting to pass up, then I'd ignore the rules.

I've already decided to ignore typical "race" boards. I race either an unlimited or a surfboard.

All of these rules have killed development of race boards. The creativity is simply gone. You will NOT be paddling a board optimized for your size and ability if you use any production race board, or any custom board that sticks to the rules. Locked in a slow race. You guys are nattering about whether the minimum width should be 23" or 23.5". Really, how could this possibly matter when we are locking the development of SUP racing in it's sixth year of existence into a template designed by accident and reinforced by a small group of people making biased decisions. Imagine if skiing had taken the same path in it's first decade.

[blueplanetsurf]

can somebody explain what they mean by:

23’’ inches as measured at the 3 inch rail mark?

My board does not have a 3" rail mark

I think this is a good concept but I'm worried the 3" rail mark thing could lead to some weird looking designs.

[Pierre]

100 pct agree with Ponobilll.  same question for 3" rail mark.

[JohnnyMaya]

I think this is the right direction to take.
Personally I like everything SUPAA has been doing. Ok, maybe they should not have sticked the finger at the guys that weren't paying the prize moneys, but hey, what's worst? Saying out loud that someone is owing money or having someone not paying what they owe?
I personally know that if i don't pay my house's bank loan, the bank will get my house and I'll get kicked out!!!

As for the boards specification, these measurements go with what the major brands are selling to everyone nowadays and the top athletes have been using. I think Naish has the narrowest boards right now and the will be compliant with the regulations. The other thing I find positive is that from the moment you envolve the major brands, the other ones will follow because they won't want to lose the train.

I'm close to 100kg (220lb) and I can race 24" wide boards, even if they will sink a lot more that if I were 50 kg (110lb). Maybe if i'm a good enough athlete, i'll be able to deal with this handycap. On the other hand, i'd never be able to paddle a 20" wide board, at least being competitive.

So what I see here is that instead of restringing what's happening today, they're thinking in what would happen in two or three years, where any lighter guy would race 20" wide boards and not give any chance to the bigger riders. I remember three or four years ago when the first 25" wide boards started showing up in the international scene and everyone thought that you'd actually have to be superman to be able to race those boards... today 25-26" boards are absolutely standard race boards. A 27" race board is a boat, often seen as a trainer!

As for the question if there is already anyone using boards that would be deemed illegal by the new rules, there was a guy in last years 11 City Tour in Holland that was racing a 22" wide board. Is not a big name and he finished top 5 if i'm not mistaken. He didn't get a better result because e felt a couple of times, but the big names were saying that it was tough to keep up the with the speed of the 22" wide board.

Anyway, if someone wants to go really crazy, you have the unlimited class!
Meanwhile, the major companies can invest their money into more efficient and stable shapes to get us all racing on the same kind of fast boards without entering the race of the 10lb ridiculously light, 25.000$ priced race boards (just being ironic)!!!

Johnny

[Tom]

I agree with all the points posted about why the proposed rules by SUPAA should not be adopted. Plus, I personally have a problem with someone coming into an arena and saying “I'm in charge and I'm going to make rules for you to follow.” That I see as imperialism.

That being said, I do have a constructive solution. SUPAA can sponsor their own races for only boards that follow their rules. They can also certify and register boards that meet their criteria and give out decals. All non-SUPAA races can continue as they are doing now, classes determined by length only, but if those that feel compelled, can race with a SUPAA certified board. Also, manufacturers can get their models SUPAA certified and us that as a marketing ploy.

[SURFnTURF]

While I do agree in principle to setting standards to keep the playing field level for paddler sizes and budgets, it does seem to be put together hastily and behind closed doors.   Given it's controversy, and the fact that popular opinion points to having professionals at races does little for attendance,  what is the incentive for an organizer to cow-tow to another self proclaimed governing body?   Races don't generally make much money as it is.   It seems to me that it's an unnecessary headache and expense taking scarce resources that organizers to better use elsewhere.

[surfniels]

+1 Johnny Maya   

[pdxmike]

I agree with all the points posted about why the proposed rules by SUPAA should not be adopted. Plus, I personally have a problem with someone coming into an arena and saying “I'm in charge and I'm going to make rules for you to follow.” That I see as imperialism.

That being said, I do have a constructive solution. SUPAA can sponsor their own races for only boards that follow their rules. They can also certify and register boards that meet their criteria and give out decals. All non-SUPAA races can continue as they are doing now, classes determined by length only, but if those that feel compelled, can race with a SUPAA certified board. Also, manufacturers can get their models SUPAA certified and us that as a marketing ploy.

Tom (and SURFnTURF, who had similar thoughts)--I think this quote from SUPAA's edict says it all:

How did we come up with the specifications?SUPAA works in conjunction with manufacturers and all stand up paddle constituent groups. After detailed discussions with athletes and most major brands, we came to a final agreement that worked for all parties involved.

So they talked amongst themselves and some brands behind closed doors, and decided what worked "for all parties involved".  Who did they forget?  The 99.5% of people who race but aren't elite.  That's bad enough they left them out.  But the fact that they didn't notice that they left almost the entire racing population out of the discussions is even worse, and shows how arrogant and clueless they are. 


If they really were doing this out of care for the sport, they wouldn't have excluded nearly the entire population of the sport's participants from their secret discussions.   

[PaddleAnything]

The number one thing to kill a cool vibe at an event is someone getting bent over rules.  I'm just making that up as well….

[pdxmike]

Even worse, they proclaimed in their edict that next they're going to go after board lengths.  Unless they change course 180 degrees, that doesn't mean, "let's all talk".  It means that they're already talking behind closed doors and will proclaim to everyone else what they decide is best for us. 


I think PonoBill has the right attitude.  I hope many race directors and manufacturers will take the same attitude and ignore all this. 

[Kaihoe]

I can't make my mind up on this one.

The intention is a good idea.  Make sure boards stay accessible and reasonably priced. There are arguments for and against on this one and you'll never keep everyone happy.

What I do know is that technical rules need to be very well written, and simple.    As with every other set of rules knocking around these ones don't seem to be  ( some dimensions in inches and some in cm as a starter....)

What I really don't get is why an athletes association  is even writing rules. What is SUPAA trying to be?

[pdxmike]

Johnny--you always have good insights, and I don't question at all the desire to keep racing accessible, and to keep it from becoming a balance contest.  I think everyone's on the same side at heart.  At the risk of turning off the few people who still aren't tired of reading about rules, I decided to respond to your comments, because I think that yours sum up pretty well the arguments that not just you, but SUPAA and others who like the rules use to defend them.  The thing is, thought, that when I read those same arguments, to me they are much better arguments AGAINST the rules than for them. 


Here is why:

I'm close to 100kg (220lb) and I can race 24" wide boards, even if they will sink a lot more that if I were 50 kg (110lb). Maybe if i'm a good enough athlete, i'll be able to deal with this handycap. On the other hand, i'd never be able to paddle a 20" wide board, at least being competitive.

  The new rules work great for you, because you can continue using your 24" board.  What about the 5'-4", 110-lb. woman racer?  She's literally half your weight, yet the rules allow her to use a board only 1" narrower than what works well for you.  I guarantee that for her, a board width comparable to your 24" one at 220 lbs. is WAY narrower than 23".  So what SUPAA is saying is that you can use as narrower a board as you can handle, but she cannot.  That's not fair, and the result is EXACTLY the opposite of what SUPAA is intending in regard to achieving fairness. [size=78%]The same thing goes, a bit less dramatically, for other women, lighter guys, and especially, junior racers who are the future of the sport.  [/size]

As for the boards specification, these measurements go with what the major brands are selling to everyone nowadays and the top athletes have been using. I think Naish has the narrowest boards right now and the will be compliant with the regulations. The other thing I find positive is that from the moment you envolve the major brands, the other ones will follow because they won't want to lose the train.

  I agree it's great that at least they didn't ban current production boards.  And I agree that other manufacturers likely WILL follow the major ones.  That's great if your goal is to keep lightweight paddlers from winning, or from being able to purchase boards narrow enough for them to be comfortable on.  But if you're a light male, many females, or many junior racers, what it means is you won't be able to buy a production board as narrow as what may work best for you.  And remember, boards that are too wide for a small person aren't just slower, they also throw off your stroke.

So what I see here is that instead of restringing what's happening today, they're thinking in what would happen in two or three years, where any lighter guy would race 20" wide boards and not give any chance to the bigger riders. I remember three or four years ago when the first 25" wide boards started showing up in the international scene and everyone thought that you'd actually have to be superman to be able to race those boards... today 25-26" boards are absolutely standard race boards. A 27" race board is a boat, often seen as a trainer!

In one sense, that's what's right with the rules, but it's also the heart of what's WRONG with them.  The problem is that SUPAA is freezing current thinking and design in time.  If SUPAA had done this 3 or 4 years ago, and set the limit at the narrow end of production board limits, it would have been 25" or so, not 23", and the boards you use at 220 lbs. wouldn't even be legal today.  I'm a heavy, end-of-the-pack old guy, and I can handle a 25" board.  And if SUPAA HAD frozen the lengths back then, why would anyone have bothered to come up with the narrower designs that so many people love today?   SUPAA is basically saying that it has predicted the future, and SUPAA KNOWS there will be no more advances in board design that will allow boards narrower than 23" to be stable, or lighter than whatever weight they picked to be affordable.  That's insane.
The other half of the problem is that as you said, only 3 or 4 years ago people thought you'd have to be superman to race a 25" board.  Now a hack like me can handle a 25" or 26" board, and a 220-pounder like you can compete on a 24".  Now that we have kids starting SUP racing as youngsters, who knows what they'll be able to handle 5 years from now when they hit 18 or 20 years old?   When you combine improved board design with improved skills, there's no reason to believe SUPAA's position that normal-sized paddlers won't view 23" boards as "boats" the way we view wider boards of 3 years ago.  The problem is, though, that we'll never see those skills in action, because SUPAA is freezing today's thinking, and any kid with great balance is going to move to some other sport where the gear doesn't neutralize his skills.

As for the question if there is already anyone using boards that would be deemed illegal by the new rules, there was a guy in last years 11 City Tour in Holland that was racing a 22" wide board. Is not a big name and he finished top 5 if i'm not mistaken. He didn't get a better result because he felt a couple of times, but the big names were saying that it was tough to keep up the with the speed of the 22" wide board.

That's great there actually IS an example, but that's also a unique race with unique skill demands.  And if the heavier racers really were unable to compete, they could....go unlimited, which is SUPAA'S pat answer to objections:

Anyway, if someone wants to go really crazy, you have the unlimited class!

The unlimited class DOES represent an outlet for people like you--heavy racers, or any racer who feels they can't compete against people who are able to use 23" boards.  But SUPAA continues to use the unlimited class as a catch-all to solve the problems of anyone who doesn't like the new rules, and that's dead wrong.  Again, what about the light paddler who can only go down to 23" while people like you who are literally twice their weight are able to use 24" boards?  Just stick them into the unlimited class, on their newly-illegal 22" x 14' board, or their newly-illegal 23.5" x 12-6?  That's insane.  I do understand the 110-lb. woman or 150-lb. man who's ideal board size is under 23" could go longer than 12-6 or 14 once they're forced into the unlimited class, but so what?  In unlimited, they'd now be competing against the very strongest, heaviest paddlers in the world, so they're even worse off than if they stayed in their 12-6 or 14 class on boards that are too wide for them. 

Meanwhile, the major companies can invest their money into more efficient and stable shapes to get us all racing on the same kind of fast boards without entering the race of the 10lb ridiculously light, 25.000$ priced race boards (just being ironic)!!!

Another argument AGAINST the rules.  SUPAA can't predict the future, even though it seems to think it can.  Over the next few years, it may be far easier (and cheaper!) to make boards faster by making them lighter than by creating new shapes.  Nobody can pretend to know.  SUPAA is killing the incentive to come up with a (now illegal) lightweight board that isn't terribly expensive, while ENCOURAGING companies to come up with new shapes, skins, or whatever the rules still allow, REGARDLESS of how expensive those may be.   Or, just bypass light-but-not-expensive boards and come up with very fast, $800 paddles and $200 fins.  If the point of the weight limit is to keep the sport affordable, it's misguided, unless SUPAA also comes up with limits on expensive shapes, expensive paddles, expensive fins.... Or do we just assume SUPAA will get all the board companies to put a price cap on race boards?  That would be crazy, but on the other hand it would be a lot more direct and logical than thinking that a weight limit solves the affordability issue.


So that's it.  SUPAA's rules may make a lot of sense at first glance, but if you start looking, you see some huge problems.  The most obvious to me is that they will drive lightweight women out of the sport, and into other sports where they don't face gear minimums that force them onto equipment that isn't idea for them.  The next most obvious is that they will do the same for juniors.  Next is that they will hurt innovation among manufacturers in regard to making narrow boards more stable, and boards lighter--but won't do a thing to keep board prices from rising.   Next is they will harm individual shapers....and on and on....

[Kaihoe]

Well said PDX

[Kaihoe]

If the real purpose of the rules is to ensure that boards remain accessible and affordable take a leaf out of motor racings book.  Homologate the board design...

To race a production/stock board (14" or 12'6") the manufacturer has to produce a set number of boards (i.e. 500 for group A cars) and make that board available in the areas they want to compete. That way the design, width, and construction would have to be commercially viable. Smaller manufacturers can qualify by having the design be an appropriate portion of their overall race board production.

So a big manufacturer can produce an 10'x18" kids race board if they see a viable market place , or a light skinny women's board.

[JimK]

Kaihoe,

that is an interesting point that was taken by windsurfing 20yrs ago

I only started this to make apoint that I could FINALLY agree SUPAA actions There are a lot of good points here on why they woin't work...Time will tell

JimK
www.extremewindsurfing