Author Topic: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25  (Read 52699 times)

ukgm

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2016, 12:10:32 PM »
Yes photo - will try to remember your words of wisdom.   ;D  :o   ;D

Thank you so much.

Purely on account of stability alone which of the 2014 Allstar 26.5 or the 2016 Allstar 25 did you find most stable ?

Eagle

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2016, 01:00:45 PM »
New one has less initial and more secondary.
Fast is FUN!   8)
Dominator - Touring Pintail - Bullet V2 - M14 - AS23

coldsup

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1430
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2016, 01:10:34 PM »
Allstar show down...Larry Cain

http://www.larrycain.ca/blog/blog/

ukgm

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2016, 12:08:50 AM »
Allstar show down...Larry Cain

http://www.larrycain.ca/blog/blog/

Yep, it certainly makes interesting reading. I'm adding some stats to his data later today.

coldsup

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1430
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2016, 12:26:52 AM »
Now wouldn't it be great if a selection of boards were tested like this....league tables

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2016, 12:35:16 AM »
Well done to Larry for doing that but his investigation shares the same basic scientific flaw. That is that it was only him who did the testing. So, it could just be a psychological effect of him believing that the 2016 AS is faster. I can't emphasise enough how substantial this psychological effect can be. It is extremely well-known in the scientific world.

Furthermore, even leaving aside the potential (unconscious) psychological effect, these results could also be because of some characteristic of the board that is particular to Larry. For instance, Larry paddles with an offset stance. Let us imagine that there might be something about the deck of the 2016 All Star that favours a paddler who uses an offset stance, but does not favour (or even disadvantages) the paddler who uses a parallel stance. Larry could get good results but another paddler might not.

Here's another example of this type. Let's imagine that the paddler stands closer to the water on the 2016 model compared to the 2015 model, because of differences in volume or design. Larry uses the same paddle for testing both boards. He finds he's faster on the 2016, but it is actually because he's sinking his paddle blade deeper on the 2016 because his paddle is effectively longer when he's standing on it. But the *board* isn't actually faster. It's what he's doing with the paddle that is making him faster.

So, what is happening here might be a psychological effect. Or it might be due to many other factors which aren't related to the board itself.

The way to get round these flaws in the design of his investigation is to use several people to test the board, using eg. different paddles etc. Even using several people does not entirely remove these flaws (eg. they could all still believe that one board is faster than another). But it would be at least a large step towards getting closer to the truth.

At the moment all we can conclude is that at the moment, over a 3 minute paddle, Larry believes he is faster on the 2016 AS. It does not mean you will be. Or even that over different distances or at another time, or with different conditions or paddles that even Larry will be.

Sorry guys, doing a proper scientific investigation is tough. There are no short cuts. Unless you are doing it properly you are just fooling yourself. This is just marketing flim-flam dressed up as science.

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2016, 12:53:37 AM »
My favorite test isn't even close to as scientific as Larry's, but seems to be spot on:
Take 4 paddlers with similar paddling abilities into OPEN OCEAN (since those are open ocean boards). During a 20k paddle (because I don't believe in 500 meter outings to test long distances) keep swapping paddlers from one board to another. See who ends up in front with one board, and moreover WHAT BOARD ends up in the rear constantly.

As I said, my test isn't scientific, and has plenty of flaws (like paddle length on different boards) but results closely in what board will cross the finish line FIRST on a given race.
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2016, 12:54:45 AM »
But please don't get me wrong: HUGE RESPECT for all the hard work Larry did. Love the data collected, and would love to see that along with Open Ocean paddlers x 4.
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

coldsup

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1430
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2016, 01:19:18 AM »
Well done to Larry for doing that but his investigation shares the same basic scientific flaw. That is that it was only him who did the testing. So, it could just be a psychological effect of him believing that the 2016 AS is faster. I can't emphasise enough how substantial this psychological effect can be. It is extremely well-known in the scientific world.

Furthermore, even leaving aside the potential (unconscious) psychological effect, these results could also be because of some characteristic of the board that is particular to Larry. For instance, Larry paddles with an offset stance. Let us imagine that there might be something about the deck of the 2016 All Star that favours a paddler who uses an offset stance, but does not favour (or even disadvantages) the paddler who uses a parallel stance. Larry could get good results but another paddler might not.

Here's another example of this type. Let's imagine that the paddler stands closer to the water on the 2016 model compared to the 2015 model, because of differences in volume or design. Larry uses the same paddle for testing both boards. He finds he's faster on the 2016, but it is actually because he's sinking his paddle blade deeper on the 2016 because his paddle is effectively longer when he's standing on it. But the *board* isn't actually faster. It's what he's doing with the paddle that is making him faster.

So, what is happening here might be a psychological effect. Or it might be due to many other factors which aren't related to the board itself.

The way to get round these flaws in the design of his investigation is to use several people to test the board, using eg. different paddles etc. Even using several people does not entirely remove these flaws (eg. they could all still believe that one board is faster than another). But it would be at least a large step towards getting closer to the truth.

At the moment all we can conclude is that at the moment, over a 3 minute paddle, Larry believes he is faster on the 2016 AS. It does not mean you will be. Or even that over different distances or at another time, or with different conditions or paddles that even Larry will be.

Sorry guys, doing a proper scientific investigation is tough. There are no short cuts. Unless you are doing it properly you are just fooling yourself. This is just marketing flim-flam dressed up as science.

We could ask him his view on above?

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2016, 01:32:49 AM »
But please don't get me wrong: HUGE RESPECT for all the hard work Larry did. Love the data collected, and would love to see that along with Open Ocean paddlers x 4.
Well, since you are a Starboard employee, you would say that, wouldn't you? You and Larry are both part of the de facto Starboard social media marketing team.

I certainly think that this kind of testing is better than someone just claiming that one board is faster than another. But only because what Larry has written would allow another person to try to replicate his findings, which is a critical part of the scientific process. The danger of posting tables of data and using various technical widgets and technical jargon is that the easily impressed will be impressed, and the non-critical reader will mistake the apparent precision of the results for the quality of the testing.

Some years ago PT Woody and his colleagues spent a lot of time collecting data on the speed differences between a set of 14ft boards. The data showed that the differences between boards across a group of paddlers were so small and the data so variable that only on a rare occasion would the results meet normal scientific criteria for there being a real (rather than chance) difference. This did not mean that the experiment was pointless - far from it. But it did show just how much work is involved in testing boards properly. If you want to really know how two boards stack up against each other then you need a bunch of paddlers and to set aside a couple of days at least for testing, and a great deal of time preparing for the test and analysing the data. What Larry has done here is actually less rigorous than I conduct myself before deciding to buy a new board.

There are certainly merits to your approach photofr. If you did it using eg. counterbalanced orders of board/paddler combinations, and collected enough trials, then you might be able to collect enough data to meet scientific criteria.  You'd need to plan out your experimental design well in advance and choose your paddlers and performance criteria carefully, but in principle it could be done.

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2016, 01:42:22 AM »
By now, you KNOW that I am not an employee of Starboard, but nice poke. Keep in mind, AREA10, that if I were an employee, I would be a fool for posting my first post above.

On the brighter side of things, and just so you know, the test that I am proposing has been done several times over:
with surfski paddling in Hawaii
with SUP paddling in France

It's a whole lot easier than you think, and doesn't really have to be planned in advance.
You can take the 4 paddlers with similar speed on the water, 4 boards, head out and have a great time on the water. You constantly push each other limits, to merely find that no matter what you do, you can't catch your buddy with a "given" board. It becomes very CLEAR when no one can catch the group with a given board.

Conditions do not matter much, and paddling into the wind or against the wind isn't an issue either.
Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

ukgm

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #41 on: June 30, 2016, 01:49:16 AM »
Well done to Larry for doing that but his investigation shares the same basic scientific flaw. That is that it was only him who did the testing. So, it could just be a psychological effect of him believing that the 2016 AS is faster. I can't emphasise enough how substantial this psychological effect can be. It is extremely well-known in the scientific world.

Furthermore, even leaving aside the potential (unconscious) psychological effect, these results could also be because of some characteristic of the board that is particular to Larry. For instance, Larry paddles with an offset stance. Let us imagine that there might be something about the deck of the 2016 All Star that favours a paddler who uses an offset stance, but does not favour (or even disadvantages) the paddler who uses a parallel stance. Larry could get good results but another paddler might not.

Here's another example of this type. Let's imagine that the paddler stands closer to the water on the 2016 model compared to the 2015 model, because of differences in volume or design. Larry uses the same paddle for testing both boards. He finds he's faster on the 2016, but it is actually because he's sinking his paddle blade deeper on the 2016 because his paddle is effectively longer when he's standing on it. But the *board* isn't actually faster. It's what he's doing with the paddle that is making him faster.

So, what is happening here might be a psychological effect. Or it might be due to many other factors which aren't related to the board itself.

The way to get round these flaws in the design of his investigation is to use several people to test the board, using eg. different paddles etc. Even using several people does not entirely remove these flaws (eg. they could all still believe that one board is faster than another). But it would be at least a large step towards getting closer to the truth.

At the moment all we can conclude is that at the moment, over a 3 minute paddle, Larry believes he is faster on the 2016 AS. It does not mean you will be. Or even that over different distances or at another time, or with different conditions or paddles that even Larry will be.

Sorry guys, doing a proper scientific investigation is tough. There are no short cuts. Unless you are doing it properly you are just fooling yourself. This is just marketing flim-flam dressed up as science.

I have now added some further analysis of Larrys data to the facebook message to add some further value.

Ref: placebo. Yes, it's possible (although I felt increasing from 3 test runs each is a bigger priority). However, blind testing is not possible in this context. You'd hope one of the metrics might indicate it but I couldn't see it apart from potentially one metric that did not correlate properly. Secondly, doing a test with multiple paddlers won't remove that and since the right board for you won't be the right board for everyone,  if an individual wishes to know what board is best for them (which is really what we're all after), a case study approach (such as what Larry or myself have used) is the best way. The robustness is disclosed by stating clearly the limitations of the findings rather than suggesting it as a blanket finding. This test was intended to find out which board was best for him and to the limits of what he could feasibly do, he did that - the blog title or the marketing dpt. may well spin the results inappropriately.

Its not bad science - its just science with limitations that only the well-versed will recognise and acknowledge. You obviously can so its great we can have this kind of debate on here. Most will just take the means at face value. However, it is important to recognise (as you do) that his results really showed the best paddling package, i.e. not just the best board but also including the paddle, clothing, technique which..... again..... is why you need to careful in the test design of what you intend to find out.

p.s. you mention you do more testing than this when you buy a new board ? - out of interest, what do you do for that ?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 02:20:06 AM by ukgm »

Eagle

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #42 on: June 30, 2016, 06:43:34 AM »
The comments A10 makes seem valid.  Larry plainly states that the results apply only to him.  So it can be - if you did the test -> the 2015 might be faster.

The suggestion by coldsup makes sense as well.  If Larry does a board test using other SUP brands - that sounds like a very good idea.  Since he is sponsored by Starboard - that would take any bias - real or not - out of the equation.  So the testing might be perceived more arms-length then.  Because ukgm rightly notes -

"This test was intended to find out which board was best for him and to the limits of what he could feasibly do, he did that - the blog title or the marketing dpt. may well spin the results inappropriately."
Fast is FUN!   8)
Dominator - Touring Pintail - Bullet V2 - M14 - AS23

Eagle

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #43 on: June 30, 2016, 06:46:35 AM »
By now, you KNOW that I am not an employee of Starboard, but nice poke. Keep in mind, AREA10, that if I were an employee, I would be a fool for posting my first post above.

photo - If you get paid or compensated by SB in some way - why not just say this in your sig - like ukgm and others do?  Maybe something like -

"Photographer paid by Starboard"
Fast is FUN!   8)
Dominator - Touring Pintail - Bullet V2 - M14 - AS23

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25864
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Starboard Allstar 14 x 25
« Reply #44 on: June 30, 2016, 07:22:47 AM »
As a reformed marketer--well, at least I'm no longer being PAID to lie about other people's products--I'd say that vanishingly few people look at the methodology or personal relevance of a test. They just drop to the bottom line. 2016 is 6 percent faster than 2015. Sold. They won't even look at "6 to 3 percent" faster. Just 6.

I think the most valuable element of Larry's effort is the idea of Stroke Effectiveness. Pulling all this kind of stuff together might yeild some information that is useful for testing and optimizing current designs. Certainly better than the long history of windsurfer tests: "George and Mary liked the BumpJumper best, but Wally hated the color."
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal