Leap of Faith - SIC FX 14????

[robon]

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.

You might be referring to me. I'm not arguing that Starboard hasn't had more changes, because it's obvious they have. With that said, I'm stating that companies like Bark and SIC haven't had some gradual shift with hybrid models, because they haven't. Bark was pretty much straight on displacement shapes with defined cutting bows for several years and have only recently adopted more of a prone shape into their stand up line up. There was no gradual evolution between designs really with Bark. The same largely applies for SIC. It was basically either planing or displacement. The original X series isn't what I would call a hybrid shape. It was a shape that could handle some chop, but still a cutting/displacement design.

Having gradual changes year to year without complete redesigns is a bonus, but SB also has the production capabilities to change and market their designs as they see fit. I also agree with the disappointment in SB changing shapes so often, and the Race (I had one), Coastrunner and Open Ocean developed somewhat of a cult following and paddlers were looking for these shapes to undergo some adjustments, rather than be dropped completely. These were the first hybrid SUP boards on the market as far as I know, and SB has been tooling with the bulbous nose and hybrid shapes for awhile now.The irony is what we are seeing with the AllStar, is what should have happened with the original Race, Coast Runner and Open Ocean models among others in the line up. It can be argued that the Allstar introduction in 2014 or so, is the middle ground or the continuing evolution with what is happening now, as the original all-star is hard to categorize as a strict displacement design as there was more volume up front and the bow isn't quite what most would be described as a cutting bow that you see on true displacement designs. It should also be noted that the 14 X 28" All Star remained completely unchanged through 2014 and 2015 other than different deck pad and graphics. It seemed to be a popular size and shape that many liked. Starboard got one thing right I guess.

 As far as stability goes in rough open ocean paddling, I much prefer these designs to traditional displacement shapes. Looking forward to seeing the Vapour and new SIC in the flesh.

[Eagle]

While speed is addictive -> stability often matters more to the average Joe.  Will be interesting to see how much traction the FX and Vapor get.  For us -> displacement and planing shapes cover all bases already.

For flatter ocean -> displacement is nice.  For big DW -> planing is nice.  For long distance -> more stability is nice.  For general everything -> maybe a custom 27 FX or Vapor.  For a one board ocean race -> then maybe a spec FX or Vapor.

Overall the evolution from all manufacturers is generally positive since boards have become narrower and faster with reasonable stability.  The big negative though is the high list price and quick depreciation.  This can however have a side benefit -> some that wait can get very lightly used boards or end-of-season stock for really reasonable prices.   

[Muskoka SUP]

Not much to add to what Robon said.  I had a Coast Runner, and would still have it if I had been prescient enough to get the carbon version.  Area 10 is right too. SB abandoned perfectly good designs chasing the flavour of the day.  As far as I can see, the new AllStar DW is a direct evolution of the CR, and the smaller Races of the same vintage.... 5 years after the fact. What goes around, comes around.  I've given up on STarBoard.  Naish for that matter too. They had a great design in the 2012 Glide (last of the Harold Iggy shapes) but like SB, chased the racers with the next generation Glides.  I'm hanging on to my Glide, it's a keeper, but my future purchases will see my money going to companies that have evolved their proven designs, like SIC, and Jimmy Lewis. 

[Area 10]

You are dead right. Naish have thrown away some great designs. The Glide Mk2 was a great all-rounder that worked astonishingly well. It just needed a slight tweak to help it cope better with really messy conditions and then it would have been the perfect all-conditions board. It is still faster DW than pretty much any of the production DW 14s currently on sale by anyone.

They then compounded this error by essentially throwing away the Glide Mk3 design by making too few in the construction most people would want (GX) and then the next year only making it in the crazy-heavy GS construction. What they should have done IMO is refine the design slightly, and produce a slimmed-down version for serious racers, and promoted a sensible medium-weight and medium-cost construction. But I suspect that they were worried that a high performance version of the Mk3 Glide would take sales from the Javelin. They probably would, because it was a superior board. So essentially they binned a great design and went with a high-concept all-new Jav instead.

Arguably, Fanatic have gone backwards a couple of times too. The early Fanatic raceboards were really rather good. The carbon Mk1 Falcon 12-6x30.5" was great (I even won a race on it, beating many people on narrow 14s who were half my age). Then the Mk2 (I think), "red rocket" 12-6x27 was a really great board, and the 14s that accompanied it (cutting bows) were pretty good too, not far from a slimmed down Bark Dominator. But instead of working with these designs, Fanatic have produced too many extreme designs since, like the original bulbous-nose Falcon (nice in big downwind but tragic in flat water), the recent snub-nosed flatwater board, and probably even the current flatwater Strike, which I suspect will depart soon, relatively unloved. We can only hope that Fanatic have learned their lesson, which is why the current refinement of the Falcon is a good thing, although IMO the latest 12-6 could still do with a bit of work.

So Starboard may be the chief offender in the one-year-only, who-cares-if-it-was-good-let's-ditch-it-anyway design approach, but they are certainly not the only ones. The original Mistral M1 was also a great board that just needed some tweaks, but instead they went too extreme with the next iteration IMO, and turned the M1 into a barge (renamed) aimed at day trippers with ice boxes. These brands probably had it within their reach to ensure that production SICs, and other brands, never got real traction in the marketplace. But by pursuing extreme and stupid designs (step forward eg. the naval architects designed Coreban "bat-board") they have allowed SIC to flourish, and now often take them to the cleaners in international competitions. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't keep indefinitely throwing away good designs for poor ones and not see it as a gift to your competitors.

[UKRiverSurfers]

And........ My three fave boards are all 4-5 years old or more.

SB is a cash machine more than anything else.

The story is shocking. They basically own all the other brands (Almost) too.

[Muskoka SUP]

I think Naish lost so much of its soul and direction with the passing of H.I.
Imagine the next generation Glide, or Javelins,  had he been here to tweak his ahead of the game shapes.  The original Jav is still probably as fast, or faster than anything current.. And that shape dates back to 2010/11.  Which brings up another notch in Harolds belt, the 17' Javelin.  It too was waaaay ahead of its time. (Another 2010 shape). I think it was a collaboration with D.K., (who Naish also lost), but either way, one only has to look at the latest SIC Bullet 17-4 V3 to see the striking similarities.    So sad... What could have been........ 

I almost scooped up a Jav 17 recently, for a great price - it's brand new, but has a major repair done on the nose that got crumpled in shipping to the store.. It looks not bad, but not perfect either. So I balked... And instead pulled the trigger on a SIC Bullet 17 (2016) Very spendy, but proven, and with the new steering and fixed fin option. So there.  My $ to SIC.  Note also, that the current production Bullet 17-4 is the V1 version, which dates back to, yup, you guessed it, 2010 or so.   

[Rideordie]

This discussion thread and the opinions being voiced are right on point.  I have had the same thoughts.  The manufacturers would do well to read our threads and learn from them.  I totally agree with the thoughts on the Harold Iggy designed Glide (V2).  That was a great and classic board.  I will not sell mine.  Only wish I had gotten the GX instead of GS.  Yes, a few small tweaks could have perfected it.  I feel like Mark Raaphorst has read my mind in describing how he has designed this FX 14 board.  The design direction and tweaks (from the X-14 Pro) that have been made are what I would have asked for. 
           

[Off-Shore]

My business is product development for major brands, and all I can say is that the most successful brands get the right balance of what I call "fashion" which is cosmetic, and innovation which is structural and technical. Few brands or companies manage to get this right, but those that do succeed in the long term. I thought SB had this and was a SB junkie for a while.. now I am not so sure. I think SIC and Bark and interestingly RedPaddle (as a iSUP-only) brand have this.

[Muskoka SUP]

Rideordie, when you're ready to sell your FX (because you'll be so stoked by it you'll move to the very slightly tweaked FX14v2 ) in a year or two, I'm calling first dibs.  I'll gladly make the drive to SC to get it, and to get some winter paddling in... 

[Rideordie]

Muskoka, you are probably right on that call.  I love the smell of a fresh board!!  Last a loong drive, but you are welcome!! 

[Luc Benac]

My business is product development for major brands, and all I can say is that the most successful brands get the right balance of what I call "fashion" which is cosmetic, and innovation which is structural and technical. Few brands or companies manage to get this right, but those that do succeed in the long term. I thought SB had this and was a SB junkie for a while.. now I am not so sure. I think SIC and Bark and interestingly RedPaddle (as a iSUP-only) brand have this.

In my books Surftech (Bark) still needs to improve a bit on the quality of the Pro-Elite construction starting with the paint layer. As far as design are concerned after the Downwinder I would by a Vapor with my eyes closed if it was not for the construction that make me wonder on durability in the long run. It seems that SIC and Bark are providing the longer lasting designs.

[Area 10]

I think it is the Cobra factory rather than Surftech that need to up their game. A friend bought a Bark Downwinder last year and it's bombproof - he says it is more durable than his JL M14 was. So I don't think this fragility is inherent to the construction/layup. I think it is just poor factory workmanship (or poor supplies) and perhaps a lack of QC. Most of the brands made there have had similar problems with some boards recently. I think it is luck of the draw. The problem is that paint-type issues may not be apparent until after the period where a warranty claim would be straightforward. Which is how I've ended up with a Naish that chips if a gnat lands on it. Thank you very much, Cobra.

[Luc Benac]

I think it is the Cobra factory rather than Surftech that need to up their game. A friend bought a Bark Downwinder last year and it's bombproof - he says it is more durable than his JL M14 was. So I don't think this fragility is inherent to the construction/layup. I think it is just poor factory workmanship (or poor supplies) and perhaps a lack of QC. Most of the brands made there have had similar problems with some boards recently. I think it is luck of the draw. The problem is that paint-type issues may not be apparent until after the period where a warranty claim would be straightforward. Which is how I've ended up with a Naish that chips if a gnat lands on it. Thank you very much, Cobra.

Fair comment. I only had that issue with two Bark Downwinder so put it to this but I am sure that it is more widespread.
I sure would love mine (warranty replacement) to be bombproof but the paint goes in a blink and while the bottom is way stronger than the first it is still pretty "flexible".
Still love the board though....

[TN_SUP]

Just sold my 2015 pro elite Bark and won't buy another without proof of durability, paddled it twice, each time required a $150 repair. First board out of a dozen I've owned to crumble.

[Area 10]

Yeah, a friend of mine has a Surtech he says is a bit fragile. This is a pretty relevant discussion for me now since I have a Surftech Bark on the way, but haven't paid for it yet. So the question is, how do you tell if it's a lemon *before* you hand over your cash? And once you have bought it, how can you prove that the board is too fragile rather than it being you that is too careless?

Of course, some of the owners of the Cobra factory also own Surftech now. So if they can't get boards well made in their own factory, then what is the hope for the other brands?