Allstar 2017 changing ?

[ukgm]

The latest video update on the 2017 Starboard Allstar:

Awful marketing pseudo-science testing. I'm also a little confused about the new chamfered rails. Connor seems to suggest it will make it more stable but I thought that would reduce it ?

[zachhandler]

20 seconds faster over 6 minutes means almost 3.5 minutes faster over an hour.

Bullshit.

[Eagle]

If not sure about getting a 2017 - there are a few 2016 boards still available.  Here are a couple -

1     2016 AS23 new retail reduced $3221 plus tax Cdn
2     2016 AS25 used/new CL $2499 no tax Cdn

Prices are much better than full retail - with major depreciation in the first year for CS.  Personally the AS23 CS is a fantastic board if you want to go fast and improve your balance.  The new chamfered mods for 2017 should make the board actually tippier vs more stable - but maybe a touch potentially faster if you can balance at 100%.  Effectively the board for 2017 will have a rounder underbody shape - compared to the current triple concaves and hard edges.

And do not believe that the board will be that much stronger with CS.  The CS board lay-up is very light and can ding quite easily.  Somewhat comparable to the old 2014 Sprint.  The carbon outer skin is very thin.  Do like the weight - but would actually prefer a board a couple pounds heavier with more carbon material.  Durability is much more important to us than too light a weight.  The SIC SCC lay-up comparatively seems thicker and stronger and better - and only a couple of pounds heavier at 26.5.  Nevertheless get the AS23 - it is simply a super fun board.

[Area 10]

The latest video update on the 2017 Starboard Allstar:

Awful marketing pseudo-science testing. I'm also a little confused about the new chamfered rails. Connor seems to suggest it will make it more stable but I thought that would reduce it ?

Well, if the 2017 board is 20 secs faster than the 2016 one over such a short distance, then the 2016 board must have been total crap...

No "built-in flex" this year? Now stiff makes you go faster whereas bendy was fast last year? The video still seems to show a lot of "porpoising" (aka pitching) as Connor puts the power down. I find it hard to believe that a board can sink it's tail so much with each stroke and still be truly efficient.

I'm waiting now to see the video of Kai Lenny explaining the design of the 2017 Javelin. After all, it makes much more sense to have a young paddler explain the design rather than the person who actually designed it... doesn't it? Still, if you pay for your athlete to go around the world to races and "live the life" then I guess they'd be all right with saying pretty much any old crap that you asked them to, wouldn't they?

Porpoise with purpose. It's the Starboard way...

[Board Stiff]

Well, if the 2017 board is 20 secs faster than the 2016 one over such a short distance, then the 2016 board must have been total crap...

No "built-in flex" this year? Now stiff makes you go faster whereas bendy was fast last year? The video still seems to show a lot of "porpoising" (aka pitching) as Connor puts the power down. I find it hard to believe that a board can sink it's tail so much with each stroke and still be truly efficient.

I'm waiting now to see the video of Kai Lenny explaining the design of the 2017 Javelin. After all, it makes much more sense to have a young paddler explain the design rather than the person who actually designed it... doesn't it? Still, if you pay for your athlete to go around the world to races and "live the life" then I guess they'd be all right with saying pretty much any old crap that you asked them to, wouldn't they?

Porpoise with purpose. It's the Starboard way...

I'm holding out for the 2018 model, which should have even more concaves and will put the 2017 model to shame! 

[yugi]

^^ 7 concaves. We want 7

and more volume in the nose

[Eagle]

Aww cmon - get real about this.  7 or more concaves is not at all practical for an AW board that is sea creature like.  With its built-in flex properties now relegated to absurdity and obscurity - at least the 2017 board is much stronger and way faster that the outgoing 2016.  What about is organic descriptors?  Why no more for 2017?

As a master marketer and spokesperson extraordinaire - you must trust whatever is stated or written.  Always.  Even though it clearly appears he is paddling with less effort on one board vs the other.  No matter.  His self timed speed test on his very accurate GPS Garmin watch to the hundredth of a second no less must surely be valid 5:42.54 milliseconds.  Is undoubtedly valid.  It was timed.

The 2017 is truly amazing and you will feel an instant glide.  You will think it is more tippy according to physics - but it is in fact a lot more stable.  Really.  And according to the precise timing of the Garmin watch - the 2017 time was 5:24 -> so 20 seconds faster.  There.  Proof.  Haha to all you naysayers.  The 2017 clearly wins this timed speed test.  By a large margin.  And yes the 2016 is that much slower.  Obviously.  Simple math. 

[ukgm]

The latest video update on the 2017 Starboard Allstar:

Awful marketing pseudo-science testing. I'm also a little confused about the new chamfered rails. Connor seems to suggest it will make it more stable but I thought that would reduce it ?

Well, if the 2017 board is 20 secs faster than the 2016 one over such a short distance, then the 2016 board must have been total crap...

No "built-in flex" this year? Now stiff makes you go faster whereas bendy was fast last year? The video still seems to show a lot of "porpoising" (aka pitching) as Connor puts the power down. I find it hard to believe that a board can sink it's tail so much with each stroke and still be truly efficient.

I'm waiting now to see the video of Kai Lenny explaining the design of the 2017 Javelin. After all, it makes much more sense to have a young paddler explain the design rather than the person who actually designed it... doesn't it? Still, if you pay for your athlete to go around the world to races and "live the life" then I guess they'd be all right with saying pretty much any old crap that you asked them to, wouldn't they?

Porpoise with purpose. It's the Starboard way...

I haven't likely been in the sport as long as you guys but I have to say I'm growing tiresome of the annual 'NOW MORE SPEED' and 'MORE STABILITY' claims. Cripes if every new board is so much more stable than the last, I'll be able to bounce up and down on the rails and not make it move at this rate.

As for Starboard, I was initially impressed with their annual turnover of new designs and lamented the other firms who didn't (and therefore seemed lazy with their R&D). However, I've realized that the boards being produced are not always better - just tailored to different conditions - and it is starting to seem annoying that the PR being released is so weak and superficial as (in my view) actually undermine what is - a lot of the time - good product.

[supuk]

its been the same for years the problem is i think the companies are more interested in selling people a new board every year than they are in actual refining designs and doing real development but that but that is just there marketing strategy, Its just the people with big wallets who are weak and easy lead/fooled by the laughable marketing and pimping that fall for it or the young guys and girls who are asked to be  "sponsored riders" where really they are still paying for the boards just at a reduced rate in exchange for being a marketing whore doing  5 daily Facebook or Instagram posts with about 20 hash tags on each one being made to buy a new board every year.

Like you say the boards do vary and they all suit different conditions but saying that they are 5 or 10% faster and more stable year on year is just BS. I watched a video of some one reviewing a board the other day who described the differences however claimed they would do something that would do the exact opposite.

personally all the hype and pimping you see on here totally de values a brand and i have a lot more respect for the smaller companies like infinity,kings,deep etc who just get on with it and leave the board to talk for them selfs in a hole more classy act.

[Board Stiff]

personally all the hype and pimping you see on here totally de values a brand and i have a lot more respect for the smaller companies like infinity,kings,deep etc who just get on with it and leave the board to talk for them selfs in a hole more classy act.

I don't so much mind a designer explaining the benefits of their new design as I do their "radically" redesigning their boards every year and claiming that each redesign is tons faster in all conditions than the previous iteration. Why would I want to buy a board that, by the designer's own hype next year, will be totally obsolete?

I much prefer companies like SIC, which put a lot of work into developing shapes built to endure, like the Bullet, and then make minor refinements from year to year or introduce new or significantly modified designs (e.g. the FX last year, or the wider FX models for 2017) that fit different niches. If I bought a Bullet V2 3 years ago, that board would still be just about as good a moderate downwind conditions board, even according to today's SIC market hype, as anything they make today. Any moderate refinements or additional models they've added to their lineup since then don't require disavowing the value of previous years' models.

[Area 10]

Well, the upside is that every year we get to guffaw at Starboard's latest ludicrous attempt to undermine our trust in them.

But, in fairness to Starborg, no-one can say that the 2017 All a Star isn't an evolution of the 2016 one. And many people think that the 2016 All Star was a better all-rounder than the 2015 one. So, that is progress. Even if Starboard seem to be wanting to turn it into farce.

They really need to develop a better marketing strategy - one that enhances their credibility rather than undermines it.

[Luc Benac]

personally all the hype and pimping you see on here totally de values a brand and i have a lot more respect for the smaller companies like infinity,kings,deep etc who just get on with it and leave the board to talk for them selfs in a hole more classy act.

I much prefer companies like SIC, which put a lot of work into developing shapes built to endure, like the Bullet, and then make minor refinements from year to year or introduce new or significantly modified designs (e.g. the FX last year, or the wider FX models for 2017) that fit different niches. If I bought a Bullet V2 3 years ago, that board would still be just about as
I don't so much mind a designer explaining the benefits of their new design as I do their "radically" redesigning their boards every year and claiming that each redesign is tons faster in all conditions than the previous iteration. Why would I want to buy a board that, by the designer's own hype next year, will be totally obsolete?
good a moderate downwind conditions board, even according to today's SIC market hype, as anything they make today. Any moderate refinements or additional models they've added to their lineup since then don't require disavowing the value of previous years' models.

Amen to that. $4,000 every year becomes a little bit of a problem......

[LeeBee]

I think I've spotted the biggest improvement between the 2016 and 2017 carbon All Stars; a drop of $500 in list price from $3899 to $3399 based on a couple of 2017 model ads. Personally I would keep my fingers crossed and wait for 2018.

[ukgm]

its been the same for years the problem is i think the companies are more interested in selling people a new board every year than they are in actual refining designs and doing real development but that but that is just there marketing strategy, Its just the people with big wallets who are weak and easy lead/fooled by the laughable marketing and pimping that fall for it or the young guys and girls who are asked to be  "sponsored riders" where really they are still paying for the boards just at a reduced rate in exchange for being a marketing whore doing  5 daily Facebook or Instagram posts with about 20 hash tags on each one being made to buy a new board every year.

From guys I know, the experiences with sponsors seems to vary considerably from the positively supportive approach of some companies to the ludicrously mercenary tactics of others (as you nicely illustrate). Such tales led me to possibly write an article on the subject later this year.

The reality is that when you are sponsored, you are (in reality) the junior partner in the relationship and that most arrangements should be clarified with a sponsor, up front, at the start, so that everyone knows what they are giving and getting. 9/10 of the problems I hear (whereby one or the other get disgruntled) was a lack of formalised agreement of any commitments at the front end and then someone becomes unhappy when something is sprung on them.

It's quite possible that next year I will be sponsored again but I only work with people I can genuinely contribute to (and I'm open up front with what I'm not so good at or not willing to do). There's no tangible glamour in being 'a rider' but there certainly isn't a free lunch either. If the arrangement isn't good, people should push back from the table and just say 'it's not for me'. The problem is (as you infer) that there are more than a few of us who take a deal thinking they're Kelly Slater.

[Area 10]

Outside of a mere handful of the top athletes in the world, the sponsored rider thing is all about a business playing on someone's ego. It makes no financial sense for the rider: in the UK at least, if you worked out the contributions that sponsored riders get in terms of an hourly wage rate, it would probably be below the legal minimum wage. The sponsored riders would make more money doing a paper round. Many (perhaps most?) sponsored riders actually end up out of pocket, ie. it is costing them to be sponsored. This is not rational. It is driven by the riders' desire to be able to brag that they are a "sponsored rider". I guess we all have to find some way to feel good about ourselves, and that we are valued and belong, and many people are willing to pay for that.