Author Topic: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout  (Read 40452 times)

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1155
    • View Profile
2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« on: February 06, 2016, 10:31:01 PM »
101 surf sports recently did a test of the 2016 SIC 12'6 X 26 and the SB All star 12'6" x 25. Would have been better with some video and timed results, but the comments are interesting. Particularly the upwind performance. It seems a lot of tests leave out the upwind variable in their testing, which is a big factor for many distance paddlers or racers. They used the same fin for both boards. Looking forward to 14' comparisons for these boards too.

http://www.101surfsports.com/index.php/about-us/blog/295-which-is-faster-the-sic-fx-or-starboard-all-star


Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2016, 08:23:39 AM »
Nice review. But I'd want to know how a board of this type surfs, since BOP-type paddling would be one of it's natural uses. One of the biggest differences between these two boards appears to be tail width and volume, and that might affect surf-ability considerably.

They put the All Star's superior upwind performance down to greater flexibility. But isn't it more likely to be that it is an inch narrower, and/or difference in rocker or nose shape? I would have thought that flexibility would be some way down the list of features that might make a board good upwind. But I'm no expert.

They could also have mentioned the unbelievably good SIC handle. Nothing else comes even close.

I don't know how fair it is to say that the Starboard's construction is so superior when the boards are not really of comparable price. Plus, they did not mention the innegra reinforcements in key areas on the SIC for 2016, which should enhance durability considerably. You'd need to give it time before making a judgement about features like that, perhaps.

Everyone will have their own view on the looks of the boards. Personally it is no contest for me: I much prefer the clean and classic SIC graphics and lines.

It is interesting that they mention a 20 knot wind as a storm wind. That is just a breeze where I come from (yesterday I was downwinding and it was gusting 40 knots). It is useful to try boards of this type in really testing conditions I think, since many people will buy all-conditions type boards like this because they often go out in weather that renders flat water boards useless. But at least they didn't try them only in pure flat water, which some reviews of all-conditions boards have done.

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1155
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2016, 09:51:29 AM »
It's hard to say what variables they are using to quantify durability and construction being better or worse between the two. What "should" make a board more durable might not work out in the real world. The carbon version of the AllStar is very expensive, so I would expect any dealer to hype the construction if they are having good experiences in terms of durability. I'm no dealer, but I would be a bit nervous stocking these boards given the price. With that said, this shop operates right on the water, and they paddle their boards, and also rent out some of the higher end models, so they should have some insight on performance and durability having some time on both models now.

This test reflects what I have heard about the SB already, with stability for it's width and good performance on the flats and in DW conditions, but the upwind performance was something new. Most reviews don't mention upwind paddling at all. It's huge for distance paddlers and racers, and something that doesn't get talked about enough. I'm not sure about flex in a board, but I do draw a parallel with they were saying in "pumping" the board going upwind when the swell gets bigger and a bit of flex could possibly help. The test did mention the stiffness of the SIC helping on the flats. It could come down to a personal preference more than anything else.

Many people that buy these boards won't be racing them in BOP style events. Some will, but others will be testing themselves in open water and using them for all types of paddling. Surfing would be an interesting addition to a test though. Quite a few videos are available showing the the SB surfing, but most are of pros riding the Allstar, and they can surf just about anything.

I have seen/read about three tests with the Allstar now, and it's good that the SIC has been included in one. Both boards are highly rated in this review and tick the boxes for most people. Hopefully more testing with 14 footers will be done with the SIC and Bark Vapor. It would be nice if SIC and Bark offered these boards in additional widths. Right now it's narrow and narrower, which was reflected in this thread last year. These boards are designed to be fast, but a lot of larger paddlers are getting left out and this is a major oversight when the design of these boards hits the mark for what many paddlers want out of a board. This is one area where Starboard is ahead of the bell curve as the 2016 Allstar has width/volume options that will accommodate larger paddlers in both the 12'6" and 14' lengths.

http://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php/topic,27927.15.html
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 10:03:53 AM by robon »

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2016, 10:03:59 AM »
Good points. On the stability issue, I just bought a Bark Vapor 14x26 and can tell you that it is bizarrely stable for a 26" wide board. The choppier it gets, the more you notice it. I'm just an average guy, with very average balance, so this isn't some BS from a pro or a dealer.

Full review of the Vapor to come shortly. Unfortunately however we are just about to get a sea state that the UK Meteorological Office have described as "Phenomenal". Apparently this is the term used when you go beyond a "Very High" sea state. But I'd never heard it before. So I'm guessing I won't be using the Vapor until this storm has passed, and I need to do some more testing before writing the review.

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1155
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2016, 10:30:45 AM »
That's good to know about the Vapor. I'm fairly close in size to the guy paddling the Vapor in this video, and once I'm down to my summer weight of around 200 pounds, it would be more than fine I'm sure. It would just be nice to have a bit more volume and width to add a touch more versatility. The shape is spot on for pretty much every condition, so I'm sure there are a lot of really big paddlers that would love to give the Vapor a go. Same with the SIC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDSMAhnavH4


Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2016, 10:59:57 AM »
I agree. A 28" wide Vapor would make an awesome all-round board and would be extremely stable. I wonder if hard board designs are being affected by iSUP sales. I think in some big markets it is expected that beginners and intermediates will mostly buy iSUPs, leaving the hard board sales to the more committed end of the market. Hence hard boards getting narrower and more expensive. But this is just a guess. Starboard are however still making the All Star in accessible widths and I think Fanatic has a moderately wide Falcon in their range, and Naish has the 14x29 all-waters Glide. So there are still a few options for people who value stability even from the bigger brands.

You should try the Vapor though. You might find it is perfectly stable enough for you. I don't think volume is likely to be an issue at your weight. I bought the Vapor expecting it to be a challenge for me to balance - almost in fact I wanted it to be a challenge, as a training tool. But in fact I find it almost as stable as my Bullet 14v2, which most people describe as stable: certainly MUCH more so than any 26 wide displacement nose board. I should imagine that when the reviews of the Vapor start coming in, many experienced racers will be asking for a 24" wide version, or maybe even narrower. I actually think that even I could cope with a 24" wide version in many conditions, and that is saying something.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 11:09:51 AM by Area 10 »

SUPflorida

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2016, 11:08:21 AM »
My BS meter starts going off when this "flex"'issue comes into play...while anything is possible...if flex was such a positive attribute...inflatables would walk away from hard boards ....especially upwind...which I keep reading is inflatables Achilles heel"
Smells like marketing hype...I don't know about anyone else but I don't like flex in my boards....if you have an optimized shape the last thing you would want is distortion of that shape...as to pumping the board, how is that producing forward motion? It's not like pumping up and down a wave face generating speed...
More likely it's the overall shape,  not flex that is giving the positive performance.

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2016, 11:15:10 AM »
Good point, SUPflorida. I have always assumed that the blurb in Starboard marketing that talks about designed-in flex is just there to try to excuse weak construction.

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1155
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2016, 12:09:23 PM »
To excuse weak construction?

I sense another SB bashing thread starting here. The other thread not long ago had no shortage of bias against SB. It would be nice to keep this from happening again.

This sport is extremely subjective when it comes to design preferences and even the most stringent testing measures in house or in shootouts like this are full of holes. It largely comes down to preference or opinions, which obviously vary, and remember, this shop sells BOTH SIC and Starboard. I have talked to them on the phone, and they praise SIC big time. I did mention that I can see a dealer hyping the construction of an uber expensive carbon board like the AllStar if it seems durable, because it would likely be harder to move than other cheaper options that arguably perform just as well. Is this what's happening with some of their comments? Maybe, but I'm not going to completely discount their opinions either.

Comparing a board having a bit of flex to inflatables? Taking it a bit far there. I have talked to multiple people who have stated they don't mind a bit of flex in their boards, and paddlers have actually mentioned it on these forums. Whether this translates into better upwind or downwind performance is debatable, which goes back to how subjective this sport is, and we are talking about slight flex, not complete "distortion" of the shape.

Regardless, you can throw the flex comments out the window, and the SB still performed much better than the SIC upwind in their test, but is this just bullshit now? Marketing hype? Anything that the SB does better than SIC in these tests gets written off as hype?  I'm starting to get the impression that this might be the case from some.

It could be merely preference from the paddlers, and they did mention the stiffness of the SIC in paddling the flats. What I actually really found interesting about the comments is that I also like to pump my board when going into decent size swell and going back over into the trough. It's fun and seems to do something, but once again, is this actually helping? Subjective and hard to quantify, but they aren't the only ones who do it. Also, this is one of the first tests I have read that didn't just mention upwind paddling, but they went into detail on it. This is very rare, which is strange considering how prevalent upwind paddling is in the sport, and kudos to these guys for actually including it in their test.

These guys gave the SIC the slight advantage for paddling the flats, and had it basically a draw in cross chop, but still gave the SIC the slight nod for speed there. For ease of use and stability and paddling in larger DW conditions, they gave the SB the edge, but did mention that highly skilled paddlers would be faster in DW conditions on the SIC. They also gave the SIC the nod for being a better value and acknowledged just how expensive the SB is. If you read the entire test, it seems pretty fair to me, and even concedes to SIC in terms of performance and overall value.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 12:20:58 PM by robon »

DavidJohn

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6675
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2016, 12:34:31 PM »
I've paddled both boards and I'd agree with most of what they say.. I'm not a fan of the Starboard fin that they liked.. and I thought the construction and quality and finish was better on the SIC board..

TN_SUP

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2016, 12:36:47 PM »
Weak construction may be too strong a statement,  I think the point is that the SB "flex" was an accidental "benefit" and not designed into the boards and marketing may be taking it too far.
'13 SB Sprint, '15 SIC X-14 ProLite, RH Coastal Cruiser, Think EZE Ski, Kenalu Konihi 84  & Mana

Eagle

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2016, 12:44:16 PM »
It seemed their review was what would be expected overall - and balanced enough.

Here is the SB take on "Flex Controlled Oscillation".  So new seems very similar to our old first gen Dominator flexy bounce.  But the Dom lay-up was light to reduce weight way back then -> when that board dominated many races.

In a few months we will test the FX and 2016 Allstar - so will find out firsthand about any BS marketing hype.  For us a board needs to be quick - but most important -> very comfortable in the ocean slop and cross chop we often ride in.  Wasting energy trying to balance is just not our idea of challenge or fun.  We just like to hop on and go 100% in all conditions.

Do look forward to your review of your Vapor A10 - especially any insight relating to the Pro-Elite durability and pressure denting.  Would say that our 27.5 Dominator is less stable than our 27.25 Bullet 14V2 -> so your 26 Vapor sounds like a very stable board indeed.  The prone vs deep vee shape may account for some of that.

For our general ocean conditions -> both the Dom and Bullet are very stable AW boards.  And our balance is very average also.

http://youtu.be/kYwb4FJei44
Fast is FUN!   8)
Dominator - Touring Pintail - Bullet V2 - M14 - AS23

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1155
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2016, 01:14:00 PM »
Weak construction may be too strong a statement,  I think the point is that the SB "flex" was an accidental "benefit" and not designed into the boards and marketing may be taking it too far.

I can agree with this, but there is a number of ways to look at it.. I'm also wondering if this may be a case of preference from the testers because they mentioned the stiffness of the SIC being beneficial on the flats, but brought up flex for upwind. It could be possible that these paddlers prefer a bit of give in boards and find it beneficial in certain situations, regardless if it is actually quantifiable.  Area 10 brings up a valid point in them leaving out board shape and width for paddling upwind, but maybe they really do dig what's going on with the flex and feel it helps. However, they could be justifying the flex because the AllStar seems to hold it's own and do better in some areas than the SIC, despite having more flex, so maybe this is where the "accidental benefit" comes in?  A lot of paddlers like really stiff boards, so it could be a marketing ploy in saying, "hey, our board has flex, but it still out performs, or does just as well, so flex is our magic sauce". Maybe if SB built a stiffer Allstar, it would gap the SIC by an even further margin upwind, or maybe it's has more to do with the shape, or maybe a combination of the shape and flex? A lot of maybes in there, which is the point. We really don't know either way.

It would be interesting to get a more in depth viewpoint from the paddlers who tested these boards, and maybe they would throw down their opinions on here. I think it comes down to preferences, and opinions, and these shops aren't going to please everyone with their reviews, and there is going to be bias to some degree, and with marketing strategies as well.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 01:20:06 PM by robon »

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2016, 01:41:14 PM »
I don't think there is any anti-Starboard bias here. This brand tends to explain more in their marketing material than many other brands, and tend to be highly innovative, so it is natural that their claims and innovations will be discussed more than most other brands. The 2016 All Star is a far more revolutionary design than the SIC FX. So there's more to talk about, both good (potentially) and bad (potentially).

I rather liked the 2015 All Star for the choppy stuff I paddle in. So if Starboard have improved it still further for 2016, and improved stability via the novel bottom channels etc, then I'm happy expect that this All Star is as good as the review suggests. The boards are probably aimed at slightly different markets - the FX aimed more towards the dedicated racer and the All Star towards someone looking for a flattering all-waters quiver-of-one. But then again, given the cost of either of these boards, neither is likely to be an impulse buy by a casual paddler.

burchas

  • Custom Built
  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2016, 01:47:36 PM »
I found their review pretty fair. I haven't tried the SB yet, but I do have the 12'6 FX.
The flex thing is no BS, if you switch between two boards, one very stiff and one with some
flex, you'll notice it immediately. My FX, which is a custom, has the flex thing going for it as well
and I really like it compare to other very stiff boards I've used.

I'm not sure why their FX review board is 26" since the brochure Mark sent me stated the board as
25.5". Maybe they've changed it since then?

My take away from that review was that you can't go wrong with either, since they are both super fun
boards, the FX is by far the most fun board I've ever used (construction wise, there is a room for improvement, at least on my custom one that is).

But at $800 less, they basically gave the FX the nod since the only real advantage they gave the
SB was in upwind, everything else was splitting hairs basically.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 01:53:22 PM by burchas »
in progress...

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal