Leap of Faith - SIC FX 14????

[Luc Benac]

Wow Luc - 1000 dollars more? Why? Prices here in the UK seem to have gone up no more than 10% this year. Is this a currency exchange thing? Our Australian friends are really suffering this year with the weak Aussie dollar.

Looks like two factors:
1) FX the CAD has lost 30% to the USD +$700
2) Slight increase in new model price +$300
i.e.
Last year the D2 was $300 more than the Downwinder but this year they are about the same.
This year the Vapor is about $300 more than the D2 and $350 more than the Downwinder
Not sure why as construction is the same and actually volume of the D2 is lower than volume of the Downwinder and volume of Vapor is same as Downwinder. I guess it is a premium for a new product or maybe because of limited production for first run...

[Area 10]

I had the Fanatic Flatwater Falcon 14x24, 287 liters and hated it, think I was too light for it, hope these new high volume designs are big improvement.

I don't think you were the only one with that feeling about that board, if you mean the big stubby nosed one. It was a optimistic concept to make a flatwater-specific board that did not have a long pointy nose. I'm guessing that they were trying to find a width/stability compromise.

[TN_SUP]

Yep, that's the one with really thick edges. Dimensions do not a board make. Fast upwind, slow downbreezing and downriver, 6 months and I still could not figure it out. Great looks and only one review, that's why we need more data on these boards.

[Area 10]

Well, from eyeing your quiver, it looks like you arrived at the two best production SUP raceboard shapers in the world (surely?): Joe Bark and Mark Raaphorst. I think that having your name so prominently displayed on a design tends to ensure that you pay just that little bit more attention to product development. Your name is the brand. Whereas if the designer of one of the latest Naish boards, for instance, came up with a totally useless design, no-one outside the business would be any the wiser about who was to blame. I've got a little better idea about who designs the Fanatics, but that brand seems often to go for extreme year-on-year changes in designs rather than steady refinement. I'm a bit suspicious of that: if a design is really good it would be hard to improve on year to year and you'd concentrate on refining the design and other aspects (cost, construction, looks etc). To me, big changes in design from year to year indicate that the design was not successful. So if you are changing them greatly every year, you aren't doing too well! Bark and Raaphorst take a course of progressive evolution, and I trust that more.

[PonoBill]

The impact of the fantastically high cost of these boards in the EU is possibly not fully understood if you live in e.g. the US. A SIC FX in the UK is going to cost around FOUR THOUSAND dollars US. A 17-4 Bullet will cost over 5000 US dollars. There are relatively few people in the UK who can or will spend that much on a SUP, which will be out of date in one season, and which you are very unlikely to be able to demo.

I empathize A-10. This island stuff makes for crazy shipping issues, especially since shipping went nuts when fuel was expensive (I notice it hasn't come down since oil plunged).  I wanted to buy a bunch of closed-cell polyfoam for a project, and tried to order it from the mainland. $150 bucks for the foam, $236 for the shipping. It's so illogical, I paid for shipping of 11 heavy boxes (with eBike motors) from China for $180, and shipping ONE to the mainland from here is $160.

On the plus side, I can drive to SIC in 15 minutes.

[PtBobSup]

Yep, that's the one with really thick edges. Dimensions do not a board make. Fast upwind, slow downbreezing and downriver, 6 months and I still could not figure it out. Great looks and only one review, that's why we need more data on these boards.

And this is the hard part with all these boards.  I love the Flatwater.  It is exactly what I want.  Once I got the right fin on it.  Goes great upwind.  Even in chop.  Catches all the small runners downwind.  Perfect for the buoy races I do.  But I was looking for a 26" width with more than 300L.  I suspect the true problem is that it really does have too much volume for most people.  Most 100kg folks probably want more width. 

[Off-Shore]

We all know there are brands that survive by always bringing out new models and relying on people changing boards purely because they want the latest model. In the early days there are significant improvements and so the yearly upgrade route gave improvements you could see and feel (lightness, speed, robustness) but as the sport and technologies mature those advantages start to become cosmetic and we get into fashion. Just look at the test on the 2016 SB All Star vs the 2015. The 2015 seems faster in flat water.

So in a mature industry I'm with sticking with a designer who really knows their stuff. Bark and SIC have this. Their designs don't change much from year to year although materials and technology do. That makes buying a $5,000 well made board that will not date in 4 years and perform the same as a new board bought later a good investment compared to trading in a $3,000 board and buying new, 2 or 3 times in the same period.

That or stick to close out sales on last years models or nearly new 2nd hand boards is the way to go.

[TN_SUP]

Pt, I liked the flat deck and cruising thru boat wakes, but I was looking for speed close to my Sprint on windy days. When stepping back the bow would get blown around. If I was heavier I could engage the fin and bow, better trim, and would have enjoyed it more. The Sprint was a lot faster except upwind. I'm inland and never tried it in ocean. Fanatic did immediately dump the design.

[yugi]

Must say the Bark Vapor looks really nice in the water. There’s a lot I like about it but the low sleek look comes out on top. As fickle as that sounds in watercraft I find it makes a huge difference. Bikes and boats need to look good.

(I even did a little bit of Naval Architecture and one of my professors was big on this principle. I must say it has grown on me over the years)

Yes: I would love to see a side by side test of SIC FX, Bark Vapour and Starboard Allstar. Also the Rogue 14x25 Downwind. Better yet, ride them side by side with good paddle buddies. Not so easy in Europe as you mention A10.

Of the 3 I imagine the Bark Vapor wins in cross wind and cross chop.

Anybody know the tail kick on the Bark Vapor? Other Bark boards seem pretty straight back there. SIC FX, SB Allstar and Rogue DW all have plenty.

[robon]

We all know there are brands that survive by always bringing out new models and relying on people changing boards purely because they want the latest model. In the early days there are significant improvements and so the yearly upgrade route gave improvements you could see and feel (lightness, speed, robustness) but as the sport and technologies mature those advantages start to become cosmetic and we get into fashion. Just look at the test on the 2016 SB All Star vs the 2015. The 2015 seems faster in flat water.

So in a mature industry I'm with sticking with a designer who really knows their stuff. Bark and SIC have this. Their designs don't change much from year to year although materials and technology do. That makes buying a $5,000 well made board that will not date in 4 years and perform the same as a new board bought later a good investment compared to trading in a $3,000 board and buying new, 2 or 3 times in the same period.

That or stick to close out sales on last years models or nearly new 2nd hand boards is the way to go.

I would not call what's going on with the 2016 AllStar merely cosmetic. It actually makes a lot of sense that the 2015 is marginally faster in flat water with less overall rocker, and a much narrower and pronounced cutting bow. The difference from the accounts I have read is the 2016 is definitely more stable and better in a wider variety of conditions. Especially in ocean racing and down wind. So much so that people either have or are talking about going narrower because of the stability and overall performance. There is a lot going on with that board in the concaves underneath and going back to the rounded nose. It scored a lot higher for overall performance in that particular test than the 2015 AllStar. 49/50 I believe for the 2016 compared to 43.5 for the 2015.

Bark actually has changed the design quite a bit since the inception of the Vapour and slightly less so with the Downwinder. Compare the design now to just a couple years ago. Big difference. I would hardly call what's going on with the Vapour a minor evolution. Its a completely different design all together for Barks stand up line. His prone boards bear obvious similarities but the stand up line is much different. Much more pronounced displacement bows on the Dominator, Eliminator, etc compared to what is going on with the Vapour and Downwinder. Completely different boards. Sic has made quite a departure from the original X-14 and 12'6"designs  to their new boards too. I see a huge difference between these models.

[TN_SUP]

While were are talking about the '16 All Star, I'll post this recent review link again:

[SUPflorida]

Interesting conversation on design directions.
 It begs the questions:
1) Is the trend towards Bulbous/rounded vs Fine entry based on superior performance or attempt at capturing an increased market share? Let's face it most of us want the latest and greatest, and the pros that help push these boards can excell on anything close to a decent design.
2)How many weekend warrior types have the power to weight ratio to squeeze out the maximum performance the top 2% can? Could an accomplished paddler that doesn't have the opportunity to be on the water nearly every day (and/or may be a few years past their peak) be faster on a different design? Maybe last years model?

3) How much of this perceived stability is in the board? It can be mathematically calculated if designers wanted to give a objective number to it...at least for flat water.  I haven't seen anyone go there yet. They include that info on some high end kayak reviews. Every commercial sail & poweboat design has to go through that process.
4)How much is it paddlers spending more time on the water? How much of its just phycological? Any boardunder 28" was really narrow not too long ago...even here on the forum I now read some getting into 24"-23" wide boards. Similar to the "impossible to run 4 minute mile"...until someone did it. Then all the sudden multiple people broke that barrier.
5) Tying in the phycological aspect. How much of it is the excitement of getting a new board, which in turn motivates one to get out paddling more which gives more experience in a variety of conditions...which leads to better balance ....which leads to being comfortable on narrows boards...which makes the new model feel stable?
There is a lot of factors in play at the same time...to attribute it all to "bells and whistles" added to a design may be too generous.

[Area 10]

TN_SUP - if you are going to try to argue that there has been equal or greater chopping and changing of models by SIC and Bark as has gone on at Starboard then I think you've got your work cut out for you. Starboard have surely been the market leaders in the "for one year only" raceboard model? Ace Pro, anyone? The Point 14-8 (a Mark Raaphorst design, sadly defunct)? The BOP? The early Race models? The Coastal Cruiser (or whatever it was called), the Open Ocean (or whatever it was called). Then there were several boards that were supposed to appear but never actually did, like the K14. Compared with that, the introduction by Bark and SIC of a couple of new models over a 5 year period, and mild evolutions of existing boards hardly seems like a headlong rush into instant obsolescence.

[TN_SUP]

I truly appreciate refinement of boards rather than re-inventing, it helps re-sale value and owners perception of their favorite brands. I was frustrated when Starboard changed the Sprint so much from 2012 (avatar) to 2013, thinking I was stuck with junk I couldn't sell. But I love my Sprint and the speeds of my new SIC x-14 Pro Lite are almost identical, so much so that I'm spending hundreds to fix dings and the peeling clear coat on the Starboard before I make a final decision of which board to keep. I'm impressed that the 2013 Sprint still holds it own against new designs, although it's wider and less stable than the SIC. Stability to me is being able to paddle hard in cross chop without engaging a rail and my legs getting exhausted - that's what I'm looking for in the FX/Allstar/Vapor.

[Luc Benac]

Stability to me is being able to paddle hard in cross chop without engaging a rail and my legs getting exhausted - that's what I'm looking for in the FX/Allstar/Vapor.

That is what I like the most on the Bark Downwinder and also why I have a favorable eye for the Vapor (except for the wallet)....