Allstar 2017 changing ?

[ukgm]

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.

Yes- aside from those actually getting paid (or remittance)..... and these are very few in number, it's really just the basic question of how much are you willing to help a board company out whilst then likely getting a discounted board in return. As I know you'll know, some in the UK are better at this than others. I know that in the UK, even the very best are paying some amount for their boards. There is the pressure of the year on year investment for doing so but not all board companies expect new gear every year though. The fact the best paddlers over here are all sponsored doesn't mean though that they are all ego-maniacs or stupid though. Some team deals I have heard about in the last week are ridiculous utterly though.

I can only speak from my own experience but the deals I got this year only supported what I was going to fork out for anyway and I was happy to support the brands in return where appropriate. All the brand reps I have engaged with are really good people, not outrageous in their needs and I would like to think I've given them a fair return on what they gave me. Plus, a lot of my output is writing based which I do as a hobby as well as for my profession so its no loss to me (and is certainly more fun than me doing a paper round !). The secret, as I said before, is not to whore yourself to a brand but to talk through with them what you'd like to do and see if that fits both of you. If it doesn't, walk away.

[Area 10]

Well, some people do it to try to offset the costs of doing something they'd do anyway, for sure. And others are using it to build their CV because they want to go I to the Watersports business (or are already part of it at some level), or they will make money out of the fitness or coaching business more generally. For these semi-professionals the racing costs may well be eg. tax-deductible. So you can put a package of sponsorship deals together that will help support your sporting lifestyle.

But the price of that is almost certainly going to be that you have to do some pimping at some level. There are also likely to be other restrictions such as not being seen riding other brands' boards. It is amazing how energetically most riders throw themselves into those duties for such a small return. So there is probably another motivating factor at work IMO, which is to do with wanting to announce that you are sponsored, above and beyond what your sponsor expects. I find that you see this less in the full-time athletes than the amateur ones.

It's tougher for women I think, since they are judged so much more for their potential to sell clothing etc rather than just race performances.

[ukgm]

But the price of that is almost certainly going to be that you have to do some pimping at some level. There are also likely to be other restrictions such as not being seen riding other brands' boards. It is amazing how energetically most riders throw themselves into those duties for such a small return. So there is probably another motivating factor at work IMO, which is to do with wanting to announce that you are sponsored, above and beyond what your sponsor expects. I find that you see this less in the full-time athletes than the amateur ones.

It's tougher for women I think, since they are judged so much more for their potential to sell clothing etc rather than just race performances.

I agree.

My own wish list of 2017 brands got pretty short once I listed my own objectives and I saw what the varying expectations from brands were. I certainly won't do the crap that some of the paddlers are doing (such as the awful Baxter 'board test') as I value my professional reputation more than a cheap board. As a result, that limits my own attractiveness to any sponsors as I'm not a prolific winner nor a 'name' either but there are plenty of other positive ways to support a brand that I have found attractive to some and don't lose either your integrity, take huge resources or require you to sell your soul.

I'll never use poor equipment though - I turned down a free board deal last year for that very reason. I won't hamper my own results to help polish my ego. The deal has to complement your racing but I love R&D and would snap a companies hand off to get that kind of opportunity - purely for my own enjoyment.

[photofr]

If you really think about it, sponsored, paid, unpaid, amateur... and anyone else giving feedback must adhere to a few unspoken rules. The one that seems to get broken more often than not is:

Always tell the truth about any product.

The good news is that the truth always comes out (eventually).
Perhaps people do not realize how their "good name" is affected when a simple lie is told, when exaggerations are made, or inaccurate data is presented.

It would be fantastic to have an independent Race Board testing center. There would be two results, so as to ensure that different riders' expectations are met.
- one for top notch athletes
- one for the average Joe (who's not a beginner)

[Eagle]

..... 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 .....

That vid would have been better to have the designer or SB distributor rep sell their soul and pimp - and not sacrifice young Connor.

We all know most of the exaggerations are major bs anyways.  But to have Conner say what he said - was over the top silly for any "speed test".

Any board or paddle or fin that has clear anecdotal claims - plus slags the previous year product - and has yet again zero cons -> often is complete 100% bs.  That basic marketing garbage should backfire.

A better approach is to just post race results and let the board do the talking.  Cheap marketing with anecdotal claims and crap just brings heavy and deserved criticism.

Too bad because the 2016 is not a slug as he basically purports.

[Eagle]

..... But the price of that is almost certainly going to be that you have to do some pimping at some level. There are also likely to be other restrictions such as not being seen riding other brands' boards. It is amazing how energetically most riders throw themselves into those duties for such a small return .....

Would not like to ride only one brand - day after day.  That would basically take all the fun out of SUP for us.  We actually love riding our different boards from different brands whenever we want.  That is freedom.  Each one has something special to offer - and each has its own specific set of pros and cons.

To continually pimp to some degree -> would become extremely tiresome in short order.  Forget that bs nonsense.  If you cannot freely state what is wrong with a board paddle or fin - you are pimping.  Very master servant like.   

[mr_proper]

I was able to test the 2017 Allstar 14x24.5 last weekend.
Planned as a downbreezer (windfinder said 20 kts), we changed the plan because to less wind. So we did 7km upwind and 7km back downwind.
I'm a beginner, 6.3 tall and 202 lbs.

First impression was that the allstar is a little bit tippier than the Sidewinder. But just for the first minutes. The secondary stability is better. Maybe because the recessed deck? How ever, the conditions were choppy and the allstar is very stable. I didn't fall to swim and for me that is great with a new unknown board. It was easy to paddle and to hold the speed.
With the Sidewinder it's easier to go straight ahead but maybe this is the different fin setup or the conditions.
The allstar feels faster than the Sidewinder but I have to make some further tests.
I like the Allstar so much that I bought it right away.

[Eagle]

While we tease and joke about the silly grade school marketing of the brand - the AS is actually an incredible design compared to older versions pre-2016.

Buying a 24.5 on the spot is making a pretty strong statement considering you just bought the SW25 recently.  As a beginner 6.3 and 202 - and a previous Sprint 23 owner - the 24.5AS must have been a really nice board for you.

It seems that 24.5 may become the new 27 race width for many possibly.  I know for me - the 23 is perfect though.  Not too tippy and not too slow.  Just right in fact.  Perfecto!   

[mr_proper]

I don't think it's the great marketing of Starboard, but because I'm a equipment freak ;-)
The Sprint 14x23 was a very short liaison, which had worked only in perfect conditions. In the first race I just went swimming. Half a year of paddle experience was not enough for this board (for me ;-).
The Sidewinder is super good-natured and was perfect to get first racing experience. The Allstar will hopefully be the next level and I am hopefully a little faster than with the Sidewinder.
Your reports on the Allstar I liked to read and I was already clear that some time an Allstar must come

[ukgm]

While we tease and joke about the silly grade school marketing of the brand - the AS is actually an incredible design compared to older versions pre-2016.

Buying a 24.5 on the spot is making a pretty strong statement considering you just bought the SW25 recently.  As a beginner 6.3 and 202 - and a previous Sprint 23 owner - the 24.5AS must have been a really nice board for you.

It seems that 24.5 may become the new 27 race width for many possibly.  I know for me - the 23 is perfect though.  Not too tippy and not too slow.  Just right in fact.  Perfecto!   

I still hadn't had the chance to try the new one. I still have a 2014 26 width 14 footer which (apart from starboards god awful durability that year) is a really quick board and great in all conditions. What I think Starboard has got right that other brands are getting wrong (and Mistral has recently adjusted for) is that the board volumes are not being set against the markets actual demographic. The typical paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina.

I am waiting for one of the big brands to jump on something like the Allison ventral fin concept - if only as a means of marketing to help rejuvenate what will be becoming soon, diminishing returns in board design.

[yugi]

…
What I think Starboard has got right that other brands are getting wrong (and Mistral has recently adjusted for) is that the board volumes are not being set against the markets actual demographic. The typical paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina.
…

Totally agree it’s a good idea to build boards for a larger spectrum.

Disagree that a typical ideal paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina. Look at the top 10 SUP athletes ranking and I’d guess they’re about 70 kg ish. With the amount of windsurfing Kai, Connor and Zane are doing they will muscle up and soon be 70kg if they aren’t already. Is that not a good indicator of your ideal build? And what manufacturers will centre R&D around?

You may not realise this but 70kg is a pretty average athletic build if you don’t live in the US, UK or Australia. In other words in a country that doesn’t allow feeding growth hormones to livestock.

BTW: “balance of a ballerina” funnily isn’t the best analogy. Dancers are tuned, ultra tuned, into non-moving balance. They take a longer time than others to adapt to flow sports.

[ukgm]

...
What I think Starboard has got right that other brands are getting wrong (and Mistral has recently adjusted for) is that the board volumes are not being set against the markets actual demographic. The typical paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina.
...

Totally agree it's a good idea to build boards for a larger spectrum.

Disagree that a typical ideal paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina. Look at the top 10 SUP athletes ranking and I'd guess they're about 70 kg ish. With the amount of windsurfing Kai, Connor and Zane are doing they will muscle up and soon be 70kg if they aren't already. Is that not a good indicator of your ideal build? And what manufacturers will centre R&D around?

I didn't say 'ideal' and this is the point - it's not about the ideal build, it's about the typical build of your paying consumers. If you look at the stats, BMI averages, etc,-  Kai, Connor et all, do not look like the typical paddlers. A lot of boards are only dealing with the thin wedge of the market and race board sales are low as it is.

[yugi]

^ and I'm saying "depends where you live"

Your "typical" seems different to my "typical", and I'm the old fart in this conversation just BTW.

[edit to add] I am speaking about "typical build of your paying consumers". Speaking about what I see, demographically in my area. I do have some feel for it. I am working a bit with SUP sales and import/distribution but my main area of expertise is business intelligence, big data and data mining. So, spoken as an engineer.

We could take this demographics conversation to another thread if you wish. Again, I agree Starboard gets it in offering varied widths. Even if they don't get modern distribution in the slightest (yet another thread).

[ukgm]

^ and I'm saying "depends where you live"

Your "typical" seems different to my "typical", and I'm the old fart in this conversation just BTW.

..... which is why I quoted demographics and other metrics such as BMI. They are not without flaws but are reasonably objective.

It's the middle of the pack paddler that brands need to be mindful about.

[robon]

"You may not realise this but 70kg is a pretty average athletic build if you don't live in the US, UK or Australia"

Or Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and many other countries.