Do We Need 12'6" in Racing

[PonoBill]

Dave has a new post on 12'6" -- really well thought out and compelling I think. I'd sure like to see 14' become the stock class. http://www.davidkalama.com/2010/09/17/do-we-really-need-a-126/

He also must have been out with Darrell Wong shooting wacky pics again, this is a new one to me.

[NickFL]

I agree because I am self motivated.  I just bought a 14' Uli to finally defeat my elevator  .  Damn 10'6" restriction.

[greatdane]

I agree Bill... if it weren't for races that require them (stock boards)... I wouldn't own one.  I love 14's.

[pdxmike]

One way to analyze problems or decisions is to consider exaggerated or opposite approaches.  

So, instead of wondering whether it's a good idea to increase 12-6 to 14', consider that maybe 12-6 is already too long, and instead of going up 1.5', stock should be reduced to 10', or even less.  

What would happen?  The boards literally couldn't float many large guys without becoming so wide they couldn't paddle correctly.  Large racers could no longer compete, period--even very good ones.  Current champions who weigh maybe 165-190 might still be competitive, but the new class of winning racers would be significantly lighter than that.  

Women and light guys would have a huge advantage.  Men's racing could become like women's gymnastics--young guys would have a huge advantage, then would be out of the money when their bodies matured.  The whole sport would be distorted into something that most of the male population could never be competitive in, or maybe couldn't even do period.  Skill would become a much smaller factor in racing, as light people with moderate skill could beat heavier, more skillful racers.  The winners at races would no longer look like really fit, tanner versions of average-sized men, they'd look like jockeys.  

Then consider going the opposite way--what if stock became 16'?

The average weight of racers would be more than it is today, because there wouldn't be any disadvantage to being heavier.  I take that back--lighter racers could take advantage of their weight by riding narrower, faster boards.  And if they didn't feel they could handle a 16' board, they could go shorter without being disqualified, unlike today's situation where heavier racers can't go longer.  

Obviously, there are some problems with making the stock limit too long.  At some point, light racers would be at a real disadvantage, even though they wouldn't be disqualified.  Plus, boards would get expensive, hard to surf, hard to transport and store...

But when you start sliding the scale up or down from 12-6, you hit immediate problems going shorter, but immediate improvements that far outweigh any drawbacks going longer.  There's some length where the pros and cons start looking equal whether you go up or down from that.  Some people may argue that it's more or less than 14', but I don't think anyone can make a case that it's anywhere as short as 12-6.

[H2Oman]

14' should be stock

[pdxmike]

The other way to look at it is to imagine how the length issue would be affected if people were say, 50 pounds lighter on average than they are.  Wait--there is a group like that already--they're called women. 

Based on the few races I've been in, there's quite a range of sizes of women competing.  Unlike with men, I doubt any needed boards longer than 12-6 to float them.  Yet at least one still used a 14' board to race on, and she was probably among the lighter women.   Lots of women were on boards shorter than 12-6, but I doubt it was because 12-6 would have been too long for them.  It was because they were on general-purpose boards, just like many men are at non-elite races.  Among elite racers, my guess is that not many women are choosing boards below 12-6.

At the Round the Rock race, the second-place woman was on a very narrow 25" board.  So, apparently she was taking advantage of being either lighter or very well-balanced to be able to go with a narrow, fast board.   I bet it's not common among elite men to race boards several inches narrower than others, because the length limit already puts most at their flotation limits even without going narrow. 

So, my overall impression is that for women, 12-6 allows virtually all women to compete without any being put at a disadvantage by the length limit.  And the very light women can still be competitive, because  if they feel 12-6 is heavy for them, they can go narrower to regain an advantage.

14' is only 12% longer than 12-6, but the average woman racer is way more than 12% lighter than the average male racer (even based on actual rather than admitted weight).  So for me, that's a clue that raising the stock length for men to 14' wouldn't be a stretch at all.

Of course, then there's the issue if women should have a shorter stock length....

I would really like to hear what people thought about this--especially the 8 women on this forum--since I'm speaking with limited knowledge. 

[paddledaddy]

I totally agree with Dave about the 12'6" as a race board, but I would hate to be without a 12'6" in my quiver for all purpose use. Some of the best things about owning a 12'6" is that it's ideal to get friends started on and can do a bit of everything fairly well - go for a cruise, catch a few waves, put a sail on it or whatever. And if you haven't pulled out your old 12'6" or similar for a while take it surfing and see if doesn't put that same old smile on your face from when you first caught a wave with a SUP.

[PauHanaTX]

Great article.  Keep the pressure on this issue, it needs to happen. 

As I've stated before....having a 12'6" class is like forcing a 225 lb downhill skier on 175 cm skis when he'd be competitive on 220 cm skis.  Who wins...not nessicarily the better skier, just the lighter skier.

"Big" Dave in Texas

 

[greatdane]

Well put Mike... I love the portability of a 12'6" & a 14'.  My 18 footer hangs in my garage 99% of the time and really only comes out a couple days before a race so i can get "reacquainted" with it.  14 on the other hand is a great compromise... the glide feels soooo much better than a 12'6", and this might be mostly mental, but soooo much easier to load up and haul to the water.  I weigh 185 and can still get a 12'6" going pretty good, but the 14' seems more versatile for me.  It sure looks to me like more companies are hearing this and offering more 14's. Good discussion. 

[Easy Rider]

Personally I somewhat disagree with Dave on this one.

As some one who sells boards - and hosts many races a year - we need to have a class that is "inviting" to the newbies of the sport that have just bought their first board.
I am a flat water dealer and 95% of all of my first time customers are buying an all around 11' to 12'6" surf shape board for lake / river paddling - I need a class that appeals to what these people have just bought.

Yes we sell 12'6" and 14' race shapes - but they are to people as a second or third board - - - once they have given racing a try and like it.  

Having "the class" become 14' means that the newbies on their 12' surf shape will have to compete against 14' race specific shapes right from the start - as no one is going to make a 14' surf shape.

As for the "glide" - I am not a small guy - 200 lbs - and I know my Starboard New 12'6" is faster on flat water than my Naish Glide 14'.

For "big guys" feeling like they are being forced into a disadvantage - go to a 14' class.

There is nothing wrong with having more than one class - as Dave points out - there are 125 / 250 and 500 classes in dirt bikes.  
I race a rally car and there are 4 classes in that sport, and on an on in almost any sport.

Three classes (12'6" / 14' and Open) really isn't much.  

[NickFL]

There should be a 12'6" surf style class.  Then a 14' and under and then unlimited class race style.

[pdxmike]

Easy Rider--you have a good point about having a class that's inviting to novices. 

But it seems that the big problem is with races like BOP where everyone is limited to 12-6, so you don't have the option of going to 14'.  So, maybe a solution is to change the stock length for those races to 14' instead of 12-6, but not get rid of 12-6 as a class for novices in other races.

On the other hand, you're using the fact that your 12-6 New is faster than your 14' Glide to show that it's not necessary for someone even at 200 lbs. to move up to 14'.  But if you're 225, that might not work. 

More importantly--in terms of having a novice-friendly class--if there are 12-6 boards that are faster than 14' Glides, then what's the advantage for novices of a 12-6 limit?  Their 11' and 12' surf-shaped boards aren't even close to being in the same league with 12-6 race boards.  So how does it help the novice on his 11' board to have a 12-6 limit to exclude the 14' Glides and Javelins, when he's still up against 12-6 Lihui Kais, News, and Barks?

Possibly it was once true that a 12-6 limit was a true separator between slower, surf-type boards and fast racing boards.  But because fast 12-6 race boards are so common now, those days--if they ever existed--are over.   

My first races (earlier this year) were on wide, general-purpose boards--11-6 Oxbow and 12' Doyle.  I had no chance of competing against fast people on fast boards, regardless of their lengths.  I got a 14' used Glide and used it in Round the Rock, and still had no chance of competing against fast people on fast boards, regardless of their lengths.  Or fast people on slow boards, for that matter.  (To win the 14' division I would have had to beat Chuck Patterson, for God's sake.  The 12-6 winner was nearly as fast.  The only way I could have beat them on a 13 mile course would have been to have a board that was 13 miles and one inch long.) 

And in all my races, the classes were irrelevant to me anyway, since I was just in it for the personal fun and challenge versus comparing myself to anyone else.  I think that's how most novices think.  Plus, since the fast guys are 100% faster than you (the novice) what difference does it make if you put the guys that are 110% faster (due to longer boards) in a different category?

The other thing to do would be to keep the 12-6 category, but only for surf-style boards. That would be more meaningful than a cutoff based purely on length, although it might be tough to administrate.  All race-style boards go into the 14' category.

And what might be more inviting to novices would be a division for first-time racers.  That's done sometimes in other sports, such as triathlons.  The distances are usually shorter also.  The benefit of that isn't so much that novices don't have to compete against fast people, it's that they know they won't be the only novices there, and that the race and the sport are specifically welcoming them, and that they won't be embarrassed by falling, being slow, etc.   Once you do your first race, then you jump in the pool with everyone else.

[stoneaxe]

I think everyone should hit the all you can eat buffets until they weigh what I do....

If anything I think it might make sense to increase the length difference between stock and 14....make it 11' and 14'....the real light folks could compete amongst themselves under 11' and everyone else...under 14 and unlimited. It wasn't a well thought out plan that brought about the current classes...it was the 12-6 Starboard, the 12-1 Laird, and the vast majority of boards being sold under that size that defined the length limit in "stock".

[pdxmike]

Stoneaxe--your second idea makes some sense, but your first one sounds a lot more fun!

[PT Woody]

Playing devil's advocate, I see two impediments to a 14' foot stock class. The first is the simple definition of stock, which implies mass production, easy availability. Consider your local retailer. Does he have the ability within his shop to display 14' boards? And given that a number of races are supported or sponsored by retailers, they're going to push for a class that promotes their own interests. And the second issue is the resale value on 12'6" race boards which would halve overnight. Just food for thought.