Standup Zone Forum
Stand Up Paddle => Gear Talk => Topic started by: FloridaWindSUP on May 28, 2016, 11:20:31 AM
-
Did anyone else watch the Lost Mills race livestream today? It was pretty awesome.
http://www.supracer.com/2016-lost-mills-results/
Looked like Connor Baxter was on a weird new version of the starboard sprint, and he mentioned it was 21" wide. Looked like a real sharp nose, high-sided dugout hull, and totally open at the back. Connor won the 200 m sprint event yesterday and finished 2nd by a few seconds to Michael Booth in the 18 km distance race today.
-
Videos of the finish of the Lost Mills race shows Connor wobbling on the 21" custom Sprint. I'm pretty sure that the board helped him finish higher than we would have if he were on the stock 23" wide Sprint. It looks more like the old 2013 Sprint with the thin side walls going back to the more squarish tail. He probably wanted the thinner walls to give his feet more room when he steps back on such a narrow board. However, the lower volume in the tail will make for a more tippy board, which is why they likely went to a more square tail.
-
Boards will have to be even narrower to enable speeds close to a canoe. The current 200 meter record is a touch over 32 seconds :o
-
There are going to be at least two models of the 14' Sprint for 2017:
14x23
14x21.5
I saw the 2016 and 2017 in 23" - side by side - and it was very obvious that the new nose cuts water far better. It's kinda of obvious when you look at the boards on dry land, but easily confirmed on water by merely looking at the spray (or lack thereof on the 2017).
Both width offer a wider tail to make buoy turns easier by making the boards more stable. This is because most riders love the Sprint, but regret that the board is difficult to turn buoys. The 2017 addresses that problem very well.
The width difference:
The 21.5 is ideal for lighter paddler, but since it's a fast board on totally flat water, heavier paddlers wanted to give it a shot at Lost Mills. Overall, they all found the board rather stable, but stupid mistakes happen:
- Connor hit Michael's board with his paddle near the finish of the 18 km. That threw him off in a big way. Otherwise, he looked super stable during the entire race.
- Trevor also had a mishap with the 21.5, but that too was "just a stupid mistake". He was paddling at his 100% during the sprints (and looking very fast I might add) when he fell in the water after getting off balance when changing paddling side. Otherwise, he looked SOLID and super stable all morning. He demonstrated the ease of buoy turns with great ease.
Anyway, there's more than just a new nose and a new tail layout for this 2017 model. In fact, you can expect a brand new deck (see images below), no paint (saving about 700 grams), new stickers, new pad that extends more side to side, and several handle positions.
PHOTOS
(https://photos.smugmug.com/FindYourPhotos-1/2016-Event-Photos/2016-May-30-Starboard-Sprint/i-8LhMRgj/0/XL/3-XL.jpg) (https://photofr.smugmug.com/FindYourPhotos-1/2016-Event-Photos/2016-May-30-Starboard-Sprint/i-8LhMRgj/A)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/FindYourPhotos-1/2016-Event-Photos/2016-May-30-Starboard-Sprint/i-3PhmmKZ/0/XL/4-XL.jpg) (https://photofr.smugmug.com/FindYourPhotos-1/2016-Event-Photos/2016-May-30-Starboard-Sprint/i-3PhmmKZ/A)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/FindYourPhotos-1/2016-Event-Photos/2016-May-30-Starboard-Sprint/i-HMcZXth/0/XL/7-XL.jpg) (https://photofr.smugmug.com/FindYourPhotos-1/2016-Event-Photos/2016-May-30-Starboard-Sprint/i-HMcZXth/A)
-
Thanks photofr!
I love my 2015 14x23 Sprint. Curious to see if the 14x21.5 is much faster. And also to see how stable the new board is. I wonder if the All Star like bottom helps with stability on the new board.
-
The new graphics are an improvement IMO. An incremental one, but an improvement nevertheless.
-
Thanks Photofr for the look at the new model. I think you left out some of the most important shots😉...the bottom...look forward to seeing them...and profile too...great camera angle on the nose...just how I would want to sight it if there in person.
-
Did Michael Booth beat Connor using the 23" wide version of this board at Lost Mills, when Connor was on the 21.5" wide version?
-
The 21.5 isn't for you AREA10.
It is however a great compromise (like all boards) under certain conditions for certain people.
Flat water, lighter, agile and younger paddler who paddle a lot.
Keep in mind that in the South of France, about 7 riders (some heavier than others) were paddling a 14x23 Sprint in the ocean that wasn't always totally flat.
Connor thought he "had it in the bag" with the newer faster board... but then the "mishap" just as he launched what looked to me like a very fast sprint to the finish on the 21.5.
-
I do not think they broke the record for fast time even with the 21
-
Makes sense to go down to 21 for the pros. The 23 is pretty stable in that design.
-
The 21.5 isn't for you AREA10.
It is however a great compromise (like all boards) under certain conditions for certain people.
Flat water, lighter, agile and younger paddler who paddle a lot.
Haha! Well, actually, I paddled two 21.5" wide boards just last week - a 12-6 and a 14. And I didn't fall in - mind you, I only paddled a couple of miles on them. But you are right, they aren't really aimed at old wobbly chumps like me. The reason why I was interested in the Booth/Connor contest was that I wonder if they'll get a point of diminishing returns with width. The 21.5" wide board I paddled (it was a Grey Paddleboards custom) had undeniable speed potential: Because my lack of balance was clearly limiting my ability to get the power down I tried paddling while kneeling just to see what the likely top end might be, and I quite easily got up to 10.7 mph, and sustaining 7-8 mph in flat windless conditions was very easy. So, I presume that someone with the balance of Connor would be able to do that - and beyond - while standing. But I doubt that I'd have gone significantly slower on a board 1.5" wider, and the strain on your legs in a long race on a very tippy board is presumably significant. After all, there is only so much energy one can expend, so if it goes into balancing then it isn't going to go into paddling. But next year I guess we'll see our first sub-20 production board, assuming that races don't start to get longer and longer.
-
Nice to see Starboard building narrow boards. And it looks like dropping below 23" width may not be leading to the downfall of SUP racing, contrary to the dire warnings of a couple years ago.
-
On the international level, there are restrictions for 14 foot board widths: 23" at this point (I could be wrong, but I believe that's what it is). Those rules have just been changed, so 21.5" is now allowed on the international circuit.
Another (perhaps) interesting thing I learned was that with the SUPER STABLE 14x25 Allstar came technology that was transposed into the new Sprint for 2017. This makes the 21.5 quite stable (for its width). Lighter paddlers will be happy to have choices.
Records were broken last weekend... at least as far as I understand it. What's interesting there is that the previous record was made with the wind to their backs... where this year, the wind was AGAINST them. Hummm.... room for thoughts there.
I agree, stability before speed for 95% of all paddlers in the world, but seriously: there's no way we can compete with some of these top paddlers:
They have amazing water knowledge, incredible balance, speedy recoveries, technique that are still improving, and power that will blow you away when you see it with your own eyes. These guys don't have problems with balance.
-
I tried paddling while kneeling just to see what the likely top end might be, and I quite easily got up to 10.7 mph, and sustaining 7-8 mph
10.7 mph on your knees!? Grey Paddleboards must be shipping with a Jet ;D I want one, I'll take the balance hit.
-
Nice to see Starboard building narrow boards. And it looks like dropping below 23" width may not be leading to the downfall of SUP racing, contrary to the dire warnings of a couple years ago.
Early days yet. Let's see where we are in 10 years' time, when my kids are Connor's age.
-
I tried paddling while kneeling just to see what the likely top end might be, and I quite easily got up to 10.7 mph, and sustaining 7-8 mph
10.7 mph on your knees!? Grey Paddleboards must be shipping with a Jet ;D I want one, I'll take the balance hit.
Yeah I wouldn't have believed it was possible - at least for an old gumby like me. It convinced me that it is certainly possible for SUPs to go an awful lot faster than we are doing now - at least, over sprint distances. I'm wondering how much faster the top guys can go using the technique they are currently using: 100+ strokes a minute, rather than the much slower, longer, bigger-bladed strokes of an Olympic Canoe. They go A LOT faster than we do.
-
...tried paddling while kneeling just to see what the likely top end might be, and I quite easily got up to 10.7 mph, and sustaining 7-8 mph
I don't know about you man.. I hope I am wrong, but I think you are full of it.
A sprint on dead flat water at 17.5 kph on a 21" craft of any sort is kind of a stretch. Heck, most elite paddlers have a hard time sprinting their surfski past 16 kph. I won't even go into the "sustaining 7 mph" deal, because most top notch paddlers on surfskis cannot easily hold 11.5 kph on the flats.
Surfski are like 16-18 inches in width, with a much rounder hull.
Stability isn't even an issue, so you can't even play that card.
You doing those speeds on your knees and limited hip rotation WITH GREAT EASE on a 21" SUP is like saying my grandma can rip a phone book with her bare hands... wait, actually, she did (after we pre-cut the phone book for her for the royal picture).
-
I tried paddling while kneeling just to see what the likely top end might be, and I quite easily got up to 10.7 mph, and sustaining 7-8 mph
10.7 mph on your knees!? Grey Paddleboards must be shipping with a Jet ;D I want one, I'll take the balance hit.
Yeah I wouldn't have believed it was possible - at least for an old gumby like me. It convinced me that it is certainly possible for SUPs to go an awful lot faster than we are doing now - at least, over sprint distances. I'm wondering how much faster the top guys can go using the technique they are currently using: 100+ strokes a minute, rather than the much slower, longer, bigger-bladed strokes of an Olympic Canoe. They go A LOT faster than we do.
If These numbers are legit, Grey Paddleboards should be caching-in right about now on the international
circuit. Connor's Average on the 200meters was about 8.4mph, which mean you would have wiped the floor with him, on your knees. You must be talking KPH right?
-
Nope. Mph. And I'm not full of it. That's what the GPS said. I only peaked at 10.7, and by sustained speeds I mean over 5-10 second bursts. So it's nowhere are impressive as maybe you thought. But I'm telling you it happened.
There's no way in hell that I could have maintained that effort for 50+ seconds like Connor did. But someone younger and fitter probably could have.
I used to kayak, so it feels much easier to me to be sprinting on my knees. And the advantage of having your bottom hand basically touching the water when you stroke is profound. It makes you realise how inefficient SUP is.
Try it yourself. You will probably be surprised - as I was. These narrow boards can go very fast. Or at least, the ones I was on can.
I would have had exactly the same reaction as you if I'd read a post like mine without actually having done it myself. All I can say is: find yourself a protected piece of dead flat water (I was on a canal), a very narrow board, and a big bladed paddle, get on your knees and give it some welly! Reach far forward, load the paddle well, and use a rocking motion of your torso to add to the power behind your stroke. You will be able to make the top speeds you can manage while standing look like kids' stuff.
-
Sh*t, next time you make sure to take a vid of the session so no one can call BS on you.
This would be an epiphany for the SUP industry.
I'll call Grey Paddleboards for specs, these kind speeds opening many more route possibilities for me
-
That's a good idea. I'll ask to borrow the boards again and I'll video myself on my knees paddling alongside a gifted SUP racer who is standing up and using a wider board.
As I say, try it yourself before calling BS. When doing the "knee stroke", think about what prone paddlers do when they paddle on their knees. Then do something like a cross between that and a OC stroke, using the extra stability of resting your weight on a long surface (your knees down to your feet) to impart plenty of motion to engage your core.
-
I wasn't the one calling BS on you, It's you're dear friend across the channel ;D
I'm definitely aware of the power you can generate in the low position, I even have one of
my paddles retrofitted to support that length.
Can't wait for the vid
-
Was your GPS mounted on your arm or on the board?
Because if I have the GPS on the arm, I can have high peaks that I didn't if the GPS is on the board.
-
Nice to see Starboard building narrow boards. And it looks like dropping below 23" width may not be leading to the downfall of SUP racing, contrary to the dire warnings of a couple years ago.
Early days yet. Let's see where we are in 10 years' time, when my kids are Connor's age.
You also mentioned the trade-offs of narrowness--wearing out your legs, etc.--which will take time to sort itself out. Obviously there'll be some practical limits on narrowness--we don't really know it yet. People are racing on narrower boards than they were not too long ago--partly from greater skills, partly from board design evolution that allows equal stability for less width. As you say, it'll be interesting to see where things stand in 10 years. One possibility--looking back to now will be something like this old Nike ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qXkn3iqym4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qXkn3iqym4)
-
Thanks Photofr for the look at the new model. I think you left out some of the most important shots😉...the bottom...look forward to seeing them...and profile too...great camera angle on the nose...just how I would want to sight it if there in person.
bottom
-
another shot of sprint's bottom from Lost Mills
-
and Lost Mills report... Connors not used to the new Sprint...
http://www.br.de/mediathek/video/sendungen/blickpunkt-sport-regional/standup-paddling-kleiner-brombachsee-100.html
-
Thanks Photofr for the look at the new model. I think you left out some of the most important shots😉...the bottom...look forward to seeing them...and profile too...great camera angle on the nose...just how I would want to sight it if there in person.
Yeah, of course...
I wasn't going to spoil it too much. As you can see now, the hull is "borrowed" from the 2016 Allstar.
-
Sweet Photofr! Still holding out for a good clear shot of the whole board from the side to see what the rocker looks like.😎
The video makes it looke like the sides of the dropped deck is what screwed Connor up when he re-launched. A trade off I guess...without the deep sunken deck the riders center of gravity would be too high at 21-1/2" wide. From the peanut gallery it looks like Conner had it won if he had taken it just a touch slower on the re-launch...
Question...Is a flat deck at that lower level (without the high side walls) really that much of a detriment to speed? Has anyone experimented with both on the same board?
And what's this obsession with keeping the standing area dry? I can see in cold climates, but where I live my feet are burning up...I end up doing some spastic paddle move between strokes to try and cool down a bit.
Who comes up with these race formats anyway? Is it a paddle race or a board lugging race? 🤔 Makes more exciting for the spectators no doubt.
-
ahahah: The obsession with keeping the standing area dry is because I was raised on an island, and things were pretty warm. Now a days, I am in Brittany, and the winters are brutal: I can't stand booties, but I wear them: still, my toes are frozen after every single 3-hour paddle in winter. Yeah, I have tried moving my toes around, and usually make sure that I relax my toes a bunch, but standing in water isn't fun in winter.
Rocker:
Seems identical to the 2016 sprint.
Standing area height:
Not sure if that's what you mean, but the same board with a lower standing area will provide much more stability. In fact, try a Sprint 14x23 in the ocean barefeet, and then try the same board with a pair of running shoes. More stability = more speed (usually).
I can't comment on the rest, but here's something you should know:
The Sprint 2014 didn't have dug out side standing area. The 2015 did, and so did the 2016. This dug out area allows for a wider foot stance, and it's super nice to carry your board (firm grip, for sure). Apparently, or at least as of right now, the 2017 doesn't have that.
-
Photofr - try wearing sealskinz socks inside your neoprene boots in winter. They keep your toes toasty.
Hats off to the guy paddling a JL Sidewinder in the Lost Mills race. Pretty right to paddle a downwind/ocean board like that in a pure flat water race at an international level. He did pretty well as well, which is a good advert for that board (and for him).
-
Another idea is to try neoprene socks in your booties - or try knee high taped booties. With those your feet and calves stay dry and actually sweat they get so hot. In really cold conditions use the knee high booties with dry pants and integrated booties. There really is no need to ever worry about standing cold water.
In Vancouver we paddle year round and our feet never are cold or frozen. If however we wear only booties - our feet do freeze like yours once wet. They never warm up - they just get colder.
Once the water warms up we mostly wear neoprene Vibrams since we often need to carry our DW boards over rocks. They do not have a bootie feel - and feel more like a second skin - giving a much better feel on the board. ;)
-
and Lost Mills report... Connors not used to the new Sprint...
http://www.br.de/mediathek/video/sendungen/blickpunkt-sport-regional/standup-paddling-kleiner-brombachsee-100.html
That may be true about Connor not being used to the narrower board, but it could also be that he was just too tired. The kind of mistakes he made mounting his board are the sort of thing that happens when your legs are worn out. It looked to me that Michael Booth had the measure of him in that race. It's fascinating to see the difference in physique between the two. Booth is much more in the shorter and wider, with shorter legs category of eg. Danny Ching. I'm wondering if given the balance requirements of SUP, this may turn out in time to be the ideal SUP racers' physique. Or at least, the typical one.
-
Standing area height:
Not sure if that's what you mean, but the same board with a lower standing area will provide much more stability. In fact, try a Sprint 14x23 in the ocean barefeet, and then try the same board with a pair of running shoes. More stability = more speed (usually).
I can't comment on the rest, but here's something you should know:
The Sprint 2014 didn't have dug out side standing area. The 2015 did, and so did the 2016. This dug out area allows for a wider foot stance, and it's super nice to carry your board (firm grip, for sure). Apparently, or at least as of right now, the 2017 doesn't have that.
Let me restate the question. Has anyone tried to make two identical boards with the same standing height off the water...one with flat deck (no sidewalks) and one with raised side walls. If so, what was the speed difference? Is it more about keeping the feet toasty in cold water? Or is there viable proof that water wrapping the rail substantially slows the board? Or is it an inexpensive way to add stiffness to the standing area without adding significant weight or adding more expensive (carbon) material through the introduction an integrated coaming? All of the above? Inquiring minds want to know...🤔
-
I think that you nailed it: pretty much all the above.
The two main advantages:
STIFFNESS - because you'd end up with a noodle if you didn't have the side walls.
WATER WRAPPING - I'd rather have water wrap nicely around the sidewalls than friction on the entire deck/standing area. Higher side walls also aid in open ocean.
Having said that, there are other advantages (and disadvantages)
Higher rails makes it easier to carry your board (at times).
If you have the same LOW STANDING AREA
-
... if you have the same LOW STANDING AREA, the board with higher rails will not be submerged as much.
Higher rails, on the other hand, can be a pain:
Falling on your board can hurt a little more (a friend of mine just chipped a tooth).
It's a compromise, where stiffness come first.
-
Standing area height:
Not sure if that's what you mean, but the same board with a lower standing area will provide much more stability. In fact, try a Sprint 14x23 in the ocean barefeet, and then try the same board with a pair of running shoes. More stability = more speed (usually).
I can't comment on the rest, but here's something you should know:
The Sprint 2014 didn't have dug out side standing area. The 2015 did, and so did the 2016. This dug out area allows for a wider foot stance, and it's super nice to carry your board (firm grip, for sure). Apparently, or at least as of right now, the 2017 doesn't have that.
Let me restate the question. Has anyone tried to make two identical boards with the same standing height off the water...one with flat deck (no sidewalks) and one with raised side walls. If so, what was the speed difference? Is it more about keeping the feet toasty in cold water? Or is there viable proof that water wrapping the rail substantially slows the board? Or is it an inexpensive way to add stiffness to the standing area without adding significant weight or adding more expensive (carbon) material through the introduction an integrated coaming? All of the above? Inquiring minds want to know...
It depends on the deck height off the water. If the deck is high enough that water is not going over the deck then raised rails are not necessary. If the deck is sunken then you have to have raised rails because you want water to travel under and around the board, not over it. There’s a speed advantage with sunken decks, but like photoefr pointed out there are some disadvantages. For me it would be Feet-Claustrophobia, a new syndrome caused by 21.5 inch boards with sunken decks.
-
I think that you nailed it: pretty much all the above.
The two main advantages:
STIFFNESS - because you'd end up with a noodle if you didn't have the side walls.
WATER WRAPPING - I'd rather have water wrap nicely around the sidewalls than friction on the entire deck/standing area. Higher side walls also aid in open ocean.
Having said that, there are other advantages (and disadvantages)
Higher rails makes it easier to carry your board (at times).
If you have the same LOW STANDING AREA
The water wrapping effect is quite important based on my experience with my Ace and Sprint. I think one reason the Ace is so good in choppy water is that most of the time, the high sides allow the board to go through the water with less drag as a result of water getting on top of the board. It's less of an advantage for the Sprint since its used in flatter conditions, but it still helps.
-
Small note:
The Sprint has sidewalls that are about 25% taller than the Allstar. Here's a summary from my prospective.
Small days:
Sprint is much dryer.
Med days:
Sprint is still much dryer.
Larger conditions:
Sprint is though, and wet.
Allstar is actually very dry as it is usually surfing at much higher speeds.
-
As I watched the format of the race play out in the video (remounting the board from a running beach start)...in those type water conditions (flat)...unless the speed penalty of water wraping the deck is significant ...the high sidewalks of the "tray" may not be worth it when it causes you to lose a race due to a bad transition.
It difinetly needs to be factored in a race strategy that incorporates landing/running/beach re-launch...funny I remember Mark R. in a interview talking about consciously making the deck design of the New FX series flatter for that very reason. In a BOP format it would be much more of a factor.
One thing that might help focus the design attention to benefit the armature racers is if associated races series were run in a variety of water conditions but the paddler was locked into just one board for the series.
Instead of designing just a great optimized flat water board or down wind board or whatever specialized board, the emphasis would be on the best "jack of all trades" board that would better benefit the public as a whole.
While inspiring to watch without a doubt, races like this also beg the question if any of what we see here can be applied in any significant way to our own situation?
Many of us are two to three times older than the "Connors" of the SUP pro world (go Dave K!) ..how many of us could keep up that "Sprayed Roach" paddle cadence? And the big question...the design that is optimized to plane (or semi-plane) with a elite paddler with a ridiculous high power to weight ratio...at a pace that would have 99% of us gasping for breath after the first 50'..is that going to work for the weekend warrior? Or are those designs actually going to slow us down because we can't ever get them to and/or keep them in the intended sweet spot?
I watched a promotional video on the 2016 Starboard Allstar were the narrator was talking about the different width options. The widest version (assumed) shown looked like the rider was putting a lot of effort in but moving very slowly. Was it a bad piece of video? I don't know...but some designs "look" the same, but behave very differently when they are "scaled up."
-
You make a lot of valid points. I am just going to comment on couple though.
If you are not aiming at being a top notch racer, you can still benefit from having two boards. It's merely a question of money, because in the end, two specialized boards are always going to be better than a single "jack of all trade".
The level of competition at this level is super high: anyone with a great all around board will LOOSE miserably. It comes down to seconds, really. Just take a look at the times: after the first 4 riders, a wave of "maniacs" showed up at the finish line in a cluster... after 18km.
If, however, you are not aiming at the top TOP level of racing, a great all around board could definitely do the trick. Any board like the Allstar 14x25 will be super competitive in the ocean, competitive but though on the flats, and cheerful when you hit confused seas. If you balance is pretty good, you could aim for the Allstar 14x23 and do even better on the flats, while still being relatively stable in open ocean.
There will always be a compromise, but the SPRINT (and similar) will most likely continue to excel for those looking to go faster... really FAST.
-
In order to drop the standing area there must be compromises - and sidewalls are mandatory.
When we tested the 28 and 25 AS - my wife on the 25 was pulling away from me upwind pretty easily. As well the 23 was considerably more efficient than the 25. Once you easily found the narrower balance point on 23 - the board was quick and stable.
So yes the width makes these boards behave very differently. Interestingly the 28 felt too stable too slow and too big - with the big boof and wide tail.
-
Per the comments on board speed, the winning time in the Worlds Fastest Paddler at Lost Mills by Conner on the 21 Sprint was 8.4 MPH average over 200 meters from a standing start. Hard to believe any average guy could go over 10 MPH except with GPS error, even over a short distance.
-
Question...Is a flat deck at that lower level (without the high side walls) really that much of a detriment to speed? Has anyone experimented with both on the same board?
And what's this obsession with keeping the standing area dry? I can see in cold climates, but where I live my feet are burning up...I end up doing some spastic paddle move between strokes to try and cool down a bit.
In short yes, raised sides with a lower deck are much faster and they aren't really there to keep the standing area dry. Raise sides give you residual volume so the flow of the water can be maintained as the board rolls, yaws and goes through chop.
As soon as water wraps over the side of the board you get a whole load of new dynamics happening, the flow along the board changes, you get more drag as you have more of the board in contact with the water etc....
As for side by side testing I haven't done any but I know the NSP guys have done enough work to decide that raise sidewalls are much faster, even the 14'x24" downwind board has them.
-
Per the comments on board speed, the winning time in the Worlds Fastest Paddler at Lost Mills by Conner on the 21 Sprint was 8.4 MPH average over 200 meters from a standing start. Hard to believe any average guy could go over 10 MPH except with GPS error, even over a short distance.
If Connor averaged 8.4 mph over 200 metres, there will have been several points in that run when his peak speed easily exceeded 10 mph. In fact, probably if you extracted the fastest 100m segments of that 200m (ie. ignored the bits where he was tiring at the end, or when he changed hands etc) then his *average* over that 100m was probably not far off 10mph. The hit to average speed over short distances of hesitation or changing hands is profound. SUP boards decelerate extremely quickly, which is why a machine-gun cadence works so well.
-
Just admit you made a mistake, that you are full of hot air, and/or that it was a farce.
START OF QUOTE: ...tried paddling while kneeling just to see what the likely top end might be, and I quite easily got up to 10.7 mph, and sustaining 7-8 mph
END OF QUOTE.
"quite easily got up to 10.7 mph" ?
Took you no effort at all, well... that's good, but I just don't see how that's even possible that: you are 3x the age of Connor, he struggled, but it was quite easy for you. Keep in mind that his cadence was 100-120 strokes per minute.
Sustaining 7-8 mph ?
Like I said before: world class surfski paddler have a hard time staying at 8mph on flat water, our skis are narrower, balance is NEVER an issue on flat water, but you can sustain 8 mph with a single blade, on your knees, on a craft that's more than 4 inches WIDER?
You are forgetting that I come from the world of K1, Flat water racing, and have been on surfskis since the late 80's - just like you are forgetting that there are many quieter people on this forum who have even more experience on kayaks than me.
-
Just admit you made a mistake, that you are full of hot air, and/or that it was a farce.
START OF QUOTE: ...tried paddling while kneeling just to see what the likely top end might be, and I quite easily got up to 10.7 mph, and sustaining 7-8 mph
END OF QUOTE.
"quite easily got up to 10.7 mph" ?
Took you no effort at all, well... that's good, but I just don't see how that's even possible that: you are 3x the age of Connor, he struggled, but it was quite easy for you. Keep in mind that his cadence was 100-120 strokes per minute.
Sustaining 7-8 mph ?
Like I said before: world class surfski paddler have a hard time staying at 8mph on flat water, our skis are narrower, balance is NEVER an issue on flat water, but you can sustain 8 mph with a single blade, on your knees, on a craft that's more than 4 inches WIDER?
You are forgetting that I come from the world of K1, Flat water racing, and have been on surfskis since the late 80's - just like you are forgetting that there are many quieter people on this forum who have even more experience on kayaks than me.
This is unnecessarily rude and aggressive. Even if you don't believe me , this reply would be over the top.
You are also poorly informed. Read CAREFULLY (for once) what I wrote, then get hold of a very narrow board and do what I did. You will probably be very surprised at the results you find. Then check CAREFULLY what I said with your GPS results.
The one particularly astute comment made in this thread in regard to my readings was however in relation to having your watch mounted on your wrist or your board. I hadn't considered that. Next time I will mount my GPS on the board.
But this still can't explain all the results.
Ok, I'll video myself doing this, when I can get hold of the boards again. When you see the video evidence with your own eyes, I certainly hope you will be gracious enough to give me an apology.
I appreciate that you feel like you know everything about everything as regards SUP. But really, you don't. None of us do.
And please get into the habit of reading what people say CAREFULLY rather than seeing what you think you see. You do this very regularly. For instance I have never claimed that I could "sustain" 8mph over an distance - I said I could do this for short bursts lasting a few seconds when on my knees. If you have the background you describe, then you will be able to do this too. Try it - and video it.
Or maybe it's just that Grey Paddleboards custom boards are just much faster than production Starboards ;)
-
You are right!
How rude of me for misunderstanding you.
Perhaps when you said "I quite easily got up to 10.7 MPH" you meant that it was very difficult.
Perhaps when you said "sustaining 7-8 MPH" you actually meant that one day a SUP will sustain those speeds in flats.
Back to the topic of 21" boards - there's a market, there's a use for such boards, because if you can handle a 24" board in open ocean, a 23" board on dead flat water makes little sense. So glad that people are thinking outside the box and pushing things a bit - from ANY and ALL BRANDS.
-
This is an interesting one.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the speeds you recorded kneeling on a 21" board. 10.7 mph is about the peak speed i can hit in a 20 second sprint in my k1 which is 17' x 16" (though narrower than that at the actual waterline). I am in my 30s and usually finish 10-12% behind world champions in surfski races.
However i would love to be proven wrong on this. I have played around in kneeling position and with the improved leverage it seems the board can be accelerated very quickly.
Also FYI the lost mills 200meter race uses a rolling start in which the racers get in a few strokes before crossing the start line according to this article:
http://www.supracer.com/2016-fastest-paddler-on-earth-video-connor-baxter/
-
Well, ok it looks like I'm going to have to repeat this, with video and GPS evidence. Maybe the 10+ mph peak was a fluke, or GPS error. However, as I say, you can get bursts of speed (of the order of 3-10 seconds) when on your knees in a narrow board that you could only dream of when standing up. There is virtually no leverage of the paddle because you can get your lower hand pretty much at the top of the blade, and using a rocking motion with your body you can get a huge reach relative to your height, and enormous weight behind the pull - basically about half your bodyweight or so. The paddle won't bend - so you don't lose energy there, plus your closeness to the water means you can plant the blade with greater accuracy, and you have a larger area in touch with the deck of the board than if you are standing, so the transfer of power to the board is much more direct. Plus, there is less wind resistance. It also seems easier to plant the blade with force, because there is Jo fear of over-balancing forwards.
All these factors together add up to a very significant speed advantage over a very short distance - at least for someone like me, whose power is all in his upper half, and whose balance is pretty dodgy.
For comparison, I was reaching short bursts of speed on these boards that were over 7mph even when standing. So I'm not sure why you'd find it so surprising that I could go 1+ mph faster, easier, when kneeling. Most halfway competent paddlers can reach *peak* speeds of close to 7 mph even on a 12-6.
No way in hell could I maintain 8mph for 200m like Connor did, even if I was kneeling. But that isn't what I was claiming. I was talking about momentary peak speeds, and short bursts of more sustained speeds of the order of a few seconds.
Anyway, get out there and try it yourself, and let's hear your results. If you can't reach 8 mph for a few seconds when kneeling then IMO you either need to consider your technique, fitness, or you need to contact Grey Paddleboards ;)
Don't go calling BS until you've actually tried it yourself. Standing up really is a very inefficient way to paddle. I just didn't realise how inefficient.
-
Here is a GPS chart. After 4 miles of fitness paddling starting slow and ramping it up on our 30" SB Touring - was able to peak at about 6.7 mph standing between sides. On a much lower drag 23" board - would expect a fresh short burst sprint to attain a substantially higher peak speed.
On occasion we have resorted to kneeling in very rough adverse conditions to lower our COG for survival. And in a few instances - powered up the blade to catch some pretty big rollers - to easily get up to plane. No way possible this could have been achieved standing - as the reflected waves were simply too big and harsh. But with a very low COG and instant power - it was mucho possible - and very fun at that.
Kneeling does provide some speed and power benefits when you normally would fall off. And would expect a high peak speed reading kneeling - but only for a very short duration. Since sprinting to plane in a kneeling position - is quite tiring - and tough on old knee joints.
A video and GPS chart result will be quite revealing and interesting indeed. But yes - always good to try yourself before calling bs. ;)
-
Here is a GPS chart. After 4 miles of fitness paddling starting slow and ramping it up on our 30" SB Touring - was able to peak at about 6.7 mph standing between sides. On a much lower drag 23" board - would expect a fresh short burst sprint to attain a substantially higher peak speed.
Thanks for trying it. 6.7 mph on a 30" wide board after a training session is very good IMO. I was on a 21.5" wide lightweight board, on my knees, in perfectly flat protected water. I had just warmed up for a couple of Ks, and I was only doing a run of 50 metres or so. On a board that is *8.5 inches* narrower than your touring board, you would indeed expect to get a lot faster peak speeds than 6.7 IMO, especially if you were on your knees. I'm not sure it's so much the lessening of water resistance/drag with these narrow boards as much as it is that it is so much easier to get a perfect technique: it's so much easier to go in a straight line, and you can maintain the board on a more even keel in the water (IF you can balance them) because you aren't leaning over to get the paddle vertical and so can keep the weight more evenly distributed between your feet.
But as I found out, the problem (at least for me) with boards 21.5" wide is having legs and balance good enough to take advantage of the narrowness. I was very slow on these boards when I was standing up - a beginner could have passed me on a surf SUP. The shaper of these boards however has cat-like balance, and he goes like a train on them, and makes it look annoyingly easy.
The boards I was on are also undoubtedly also very good board designs. One of the UK's top female racers uses one of the designs I was on (and the same width, I think) and says it is the fastest board she's ever paddled. I won't tell you what brand she used to paddle, but see if you can guess... ;)
-
Definitely that 30 is a slug compared to the 23 AS we tested recently. Even the 25 Sprint we just about bought years ago was pretty damn fast.
The amount of drag even with the pintail is annoying in a 30 width. It definitely is a good workout though pulling such a wide board though the ocean. You can feel the deceleration between strokes very quickly. Ok nonetheless as we only paddle for fitness challenge and fun. :)
-
Nice to see Starboard building narrow boards. And it looks like dropping below 23" width may not be leading to the downfall of SUP racing, contrary to the dire warnings of a couple years ago.
I'm not sure how you can say that given that the board isn't even out for purchase yet.
Don't get me wrong, this board is awesome for driving performance onwards and seeing how fast we can go. However when you look at the sport as a whole (not just at the elites), allowing boards this narrow is going to be an unmitigated disaster for growing the sport. There has been too many examples in other sports of high performance equipment killing off (or preventing) mass participation.
-
Yes, it is almost three years to the day when Jim Terrell wrote his influential article on the future of SUPS racing:
http://www.supracer.com/the-death-and-rebirth-of-sup-racing/
It seems to me that pretty much everything he predicted is slowly happening. I have no reason to think that the final outcome that he warns about won't happen too.
The future could be kept rosy via the all-round/surf class and the unlimiteds IMO. But that's a discussion for another day.
-
Nice to see Starboard building narrow boards. And it looks like dropping below 23" width may not be leading to the downfall of SUP racing, contrary to the dire warnings of a couple years ago.
I'm not sure how you can say that given that the board isn't even out for purchase yet.
Good point, but on the other hand, I said "may not" instead of "will not".
And although the it may not be for sale yet, the decision by Starboard to sell it has already happened. And that means Starboard has broken away from the group of manufacturers that supposedly agreed 2 or 3 years ago not to sell 14' boards less than 23" wide. The rhetoric of a few years ago was that it absolutely would destroy SUP racing. To me that means that at least Starboard--one of the largest manufacturers--has decided that selling a narrow board isn't going to ruin the sport. Or it may mean they believe it may kill the sport, but they don't care.
-
Yes, it is almost three years to the day when Jim Terrell wrote his influential article on the future of SUPS racing:
http://www.supracer.com/the-death-and-rebirth-of-sup-racing/
It seems to me that pretty much everything he predicted is slowly happening. I have no reason to think that the final outcome that he warns about won't happen too.
Jim was spot on.
Here was my own article I wrote on the subject on Supracer and (aside from the 4 metre class proposal) agree with Jim wholesale.
http://www.supracer.com/the-board-class-debate-again/
SUP's beauty (in fact the whole reason I tried and left surfskiing and moved to SUP) was that its accessibility and gentle learning curve would mean racing would eventually be well attended. Boards this narrow will kill that off.
-
Nice to see Starboard building narrow boards. And it looks like dropping below 23" width may not be leading to the downfall of SUP racing, contrary to the dire warnings of a couple years ago.
I'm not sure how you can say that given that the board isn't even out for purchase yet.
Good point, but on the other hand, I said "may not" instead of "will not".
And although the it may not be for sale yet, the decision by Starboard to sell it has already happened. And that means Starboard has broken away from the group of manufacturers that supposedly agreed 2 or 3 years ago not to sell 14' boards less than 23" wide. The rhetoric of a few years ago was that it absolutely would destroy SUP racing. To me that means that at least Starboard--one of the largest manufacturers--has decided that selling a narrow board isn't going to ruin the sport. Or it may mean they believe it may kill the sport, but they don't care.
That's just market push and pull (coupled with the lack of a governing body). Gentleman's agreements never last in sport because competitive influences would mean there would be advantage for someone to test the water. Mind you, there are two paddlers in the UK that were using customs below 23 inches already so its not Starboards fault really.
However, some of this might well be avoided if the newer but narrower flatwater boards in the 24-25 inch range are really as stable as people claim as that will maintain a realistic gap to what the weekend warriors might use.
-
This illconcieved threat of the narrow board theme...the whole premise seems silly to me...following this line of thinking any sport or activity that has a elite level of participant would die.
Did people stop driving cars on vacation trips because of Nascar? Do people quite using ski & fishing boats because of racing Formula1 tunnel hulls no weekend warrior could handle? The examples could go on for ever...Does the sport of horse racing die because a 6'-6" 260lb rider can't be competitive at any serious event? ....or how about basketball... Did it die because a 5' center would have a snowballs chance in hell in the NBL?
There never has been, and never wil be, a fair competition. Someone is always going to have an advantage over another. Be it Gods gifting, genetic, more time to devote to improvement or a hundred other factors.
If we would be brutally honest with ourselves...the naked truth is the only time people think something is fair is when they hold an advantage or special privilege over others.
-
An intersecting factor for racing these days is the cost of boards in some markets worldwide, and the types of races used. In Europe a carbon All Star 14 costs 3714 Dollars US at today's exchange rates. 3714 dollars US. Three thousand seven hundred and fourteen US dollars.
Now, this might not be a problem if two other things weren't also happening:
1. Distributors are importing fewer and fewer race boards, and especially the cheap construction ones. Over the last few years, retailers have been burnt by old stock that has not sold, and the tendency for brands to completely change their models every 5 minutes. The margins are much higher on carbon boards. And they reason that since people buying new narrow raceboards will be serious racers rather than recreational paddlers, it is better to import a few high-spec carbon boards than rush getting stuck with several cheaper-but-heavy glass boards. So there is simply not that much stock around. Long waits for delivery are common, alongside the high prices because not much stock is held. There are cheaper local brands and customs, but their re-sale tends to be very weak.
2. Several races these days involve running with your board (eg. Lost Mills) or have portage sections, or many places where the ability to be able to lift your board easily is a necessity (eg. beach starts, some races on canals and rivers). This puts a premium on having a light board. Have you ever tried running with a 35lb Naish Glide? Or a beach start with one, or lifting one out of the water for a portage section on a long river or canal race? The sheer weight of the cheaper boards becomes a huge disadvantage, to the point where for what you are asked to do with the board during a race is almost impossible for some people and board combinations.
And then there is the durability issue... Or rather the lack of it. I've got a 2014 Ace carbon that was raced (hard) for just one season and it's value dropped over 2500 US dollars in ONE YEAR. Who can afford that? The boards just aren't fit for purpose really: an expensive racing board should be able to stand up to the normal rigours of racing (including clumsy buoy turns, getting bumped through drafting etc). But they can't. Constant expensive repairs and heavy depreciation follow. We need a revolution in construction methods, or else change the format of races so that there is not as much "rubbing" in racing.
So, combine these factors with the move towards race boards that beginners have no hope of standing on, this meaning that they will have to invest a year of balance training and several iterations of (hard to find) ever-narrower boards in order to acquire the skills to stand on anything remotely resembling what the elite few are on, hoovering up the prize money, and you are creating a huge gap between the entry-level paddler and the serious racer. The issue is as much about money and time as it is the equipment.
It is likely that the growth in racing has already levelled out. Paddlers are still turning out in their droves for big events where you get to paddle somewhere you don't normally (eg. the Paris Crossing). These are the equivalent of big marathon running races which attract weekend warrior runners looking to challenge themselves - and then possibly never race again. I can see these events still succeeding. But will there be a continued growth at the club level as costs continue to spiral and equipment gets extremely hard to use and source? I doubt it. Then, once racing has become so specialised that it is essentially an oddity (like Olympic Canoe), even the big event races will start to disappear. Unless your dad forced you to train on a 18" wide SUP every week between the ages of 6 and 14, you won't be able to stand on the boards you need to stand on to take part.
But that's OK. I'm not sure how much racing is really contributing to the general SUP community anyway. SUP originally emerged out of the desire to make the most of unpromising conditions, and to generally have fun. Racing SUPs actually seemed a bit odd when it first started - a bit silly, even. A bit like having a paddling race for boogie boards, or doing the M2O on a rubber ring would seem peculiar. And I guess that in time that is where SUP racing will return, leaving the all the fantastic recreational uses still going - on cheaper and more durable boards, just like it was back in 2007.
-
This illconcieved threat of the narrow board theme...the whole premise seems silly to me...following this line of thinking any sport or activity that has a elite level of participant would die.
Did people stop driving cars on vacation trips because of Nascar? Do people quite using ski & fishing boats because of racing Formula1 tunnel hulls no weekend warrior could handle? The examples could go on for ever...Does the sport of horse racing die because a 6'-6" 260lb rider can't be competitive at any serious event? ....or how about basketball... Did it die because a 5' center would have a snowballs chance in hell in the NBL?
There never has been, and never wil be, a fair competition. Someone is always going to have an advantage over another. Be it Gods gifting, genetic, more time to devote to improvement or a hundred other factors.
If we would be brutally honest with ourselves...the naked truth is the only time people think something is fair is when they hold an advantage or special privilege over others.
The Nascar example and your other examples are flawed as you're comparing products inside and outside of the sport. This is all about comparisons of equipment used within the same sport (or race). Would you (if you were able) want to race a Prius in that race if you could ? By the time you'd been lapped a few hundred times (but realised the fast cars were either too expensive or too undriveable) you'd go elsewhere in the end to do another form of driving. The concept of high skill equipment making a sport elitist has been seen in K1, some classes of sailing, canoeing and a few others. SUP has done nothing so far to demonstrate it won't end up the same way - i.e. niche. However, it doesn't have to (and that was Jims and my point in our respective articles). However, you might not see mass participation as relevant (at which point, lets get on with developing the most stable narrow boards we can). Mind you, we might as well abandon length restrictions if we're going to ignore width restrictions.
It's not about being advantageous to one type of person or another (you're spot on with that - and board width isn't going to change that anyway), but the point is you won't get mass participation (if that's what the sport wants), if you make the learning/skill curve too steep to be mid pack competitive.
-
An intersecting factor for racing these days is the cost of boards in some markets worldwide, and the types of races used. In Europe a carbon All Star 14 costs 3714 Dollars US at today's exchange rates. 3714 dollars US. Three thousand seven hundred and fourteen US dollars.
Now, this might not be a problem if two other things weren't also happening:
1. Distributors are importing fewer and fewer race boards, and especially the cheap construction ones. Over the last few years, retailers have been burnt by old stock that has not sold, and the tendency for brands to completely change their models every 5 minutes. The margins are much higher on carbon boards. And they reason that since people buying new narrow raceboards will be serious racers rather than recreational paddlers, it is better to import a few high-spec carbon boards than rush getting stuck with several cheaper-but-heavy glass boards. So there is simply not that much stock around. Long waits for delivery are common, alongside the high prices because not much stock is held. There are cheaper local brands and customs, but their re-sale tends to be very weak.
2. Several races these days involve running with your board (eg. Lost Mills) or have portage sections, or many places where the ability to be able to lift your board easily is a necessity (eg. beach starts, some races on canals and rivers). This puts a premium on having a light board. Have you ever tried running with a 35lb Naish Glide? Or a beach start with one, or lifting one out of the water for a portage section on a long river or canal race? The sheer weight of the cheaper boards becomes a huge disadvantage, to the point where for what you are asked to do with the board during a race is almost impossible for some people and board combinations.
And then there is the durability issue... Or rather the lack of it. I've got a 2014 Ace carbon that was raced (hard) for just one season and it's value dropped over 2500 US dollars in ONE YEAR. Who can afford that? The boards just aren't fit for purpose really: an expensive racing board should be able to stand up to the normal rigours of racing (including clumsy buoy turns, getting bumped through drafting etc). But they can't. Constant expensive repairs and heavy depreciation follow. We need a revolution in construction methods, or else change the format of races so that there is not as much "rubbing" in racing.
So, combine these factors with the move towards race boards that beginners have no hope of standing on, this meaning that they will have to invest a year of balance training and several iterations of (hard to find) ever-narrower boards in order to acquire the skills to stand on anything remotely resembling what the elite few are on, hoovering up the prize money, and you are creating a huge gap between the entry-level paddler and the serious racer. The issue is as much about money and time as it is the equipment.
It is likely that the growth in racing has already levelled out. Paddlers are still turning out in their droves for big events where you get to paddle somewhere you don't normally (eg. the Paris Crossing). These are the equivalent of big marathon running races which attract weekend warrior runners looking to challenge themselves - and then possibly never race again. I can see these events still succeeding. But will there be a continued growth at the club level as costs continue to spiral and equipment gets extremely hard to use and source? I doubt it. Then, once racing has become so specialised that it is essentially an oddity (like Olympic Canoe), even the big event races will start to disappear. Unless your dad forced you to train on a 18" wide SUP every week between the ages of 6 and 14, you won't be able to stand on the boards you need to stand on to take part.
But that's OK. I'm not sure how much racing is really contributing to the general SUP community anyway. SUP originally emerged out of the desire to make the most of unpromising conditions, and to generally have fun. Racing SUPs actually seemed a bit odd when it first started - a bit silly, even. A bit like having a paddling race for boogie boards, or doing the M2O on a rubber ring would seem peculiar. And I guess that in time that is where SUP racing will return, leaving the all the fantastic recreational uses still going - on cheaper and more durable boards, just like it was back in 2007.
Good answer. Lots to think about there (pretty much all of it I agree with).
The flipside I'm seeing is that there is no secondhand market. The carbon boards are more competitive but their depreciation is horrific. I suspect competitive riders buy new (and top of the range) gear (and not secondhand) but your garden variety participant will buy what they can afford and don't mind if the board is glass rather than carbon.
-
.
-
This illconcieved threat of the narrow board theme...the whole premise seems silly to me...following this line of thinking any sport or activity that has a elite level of participant would die.
Did people stop driving cars on vacation trips because of Nascar? Do people quite using ski & fishing boats because of racing Formula1 tunnel hulls no weekend warrior could handle? The examples could go on for ever...Does the sport of horse racing die because a 6'-6" 260lb rider can't be competitive at any serious event? ....or how about basketball... Did it die because a 5' center would have a snowballs chance in hell in the NBL?
There never has been, and never wil be, a fair competition. Someone is always going to have an advantage over another. Be it Gods gifting, genetic, more time to devote to improvement or a hundred other factors.
If we would be brutally honest with ourselves...the naked truth is the only time people think something is fair is when they hold an advantage or special privilege over others.
Sometimes, when people say things that are "right on the money" like the above, it needs to be pointed out!
VERY WELL SAID, by SUPFlorida
-
Perhaps some people need to broaden their views. Looking back at years of competing in various sports, I admit having had some of the "best gear for the job" for several races (nope: it didn't always allow me to come in first place).
Along those lines, I have also participated in sports where I didn't have the best gear: mainly because I couldn't afford it, or it was way too "advanced" for me, OR I just wasn't good enough to handle the "tool". A very good example: Road Biking.
First, I didn't know how much I was going to pedal, so why purchase an expansive bike?
Second, I could afford the "tools" - I was in high school.
Third, I couldn't handle the high-end race bikes.
QUESTIONS?
Did it prevent me from having fun, participating in races, travelling to race? NO.
Did it prevent me from being competitive? NO.
I road ROAD BIKES for over 30 years, very competitively, and that sport isn't about to die, no matter if some bikes cost well over $11000 - without pedals.
All of this thinking brings another point:
If the width restriction was 27", do you really think that top athletes would find any thrills?
Honestly, not as much.
There's also a huge difference between SUP and SURFSKI:
Two years after the "birth" of SUP, we found elite boards as well as entry-level boards... and nearly everything in between.
25 years after the birth of SURFSKIS, we just started seeing couple of models available for the "masses" - beginners, entry level, or people just getting into the sport.
Surfskis isn't a sport that "boomed" very much in the mainland US, or in Europe for that matter. But watch out: Surski is BOOMING right now, not because we removed Elite skis, but because we are making the sport accessible to all: Elites as well as those who are just getting started. Remember: you need both!
That's right: you can't do without the racers (even if they do not represent but 1% of the SUP population) but you can't do without the "just getting started market" either. It's a balancing game, literally.
-
Photofr you just touched on something I wanted to bring up...what is the percentage of SUP participants that race? Anyone have concrete statistics on this?
Is this the tail wagging the dog?
Does the general SUP public even give a flip about the 21" wide board Connor paddles? If you ask the average SUPer to spend $3,500-$4,500 for one race board and high end paddle they would they ask you what you been smoking?
Yea here on the Zone we foam at the mouth over the lastest and greatest tweak to board & paddle...the average Jane/Joe that gets their board wet twice a month would more than likely roll their eyes and tell us to get a life... ha.
I'm sure this is blasphemy to some...but getting the masses involved...I never quite figured that out in any sport...hasn't worked out so well for surfing (windsurfing, Kites)...overcrowded breaks, no place to park, and the aggression that goes with it.
Unless your making your living directly from the sport... Getting the masses involved just means even more strain on recreational water access. I enjoy paddling with others but I don't see a compelling reason to put an SUP in every garage...
-
Of course the answer is that most people paddling a SUP could care less. Even most racers don't care what elite racers are doing. Most of us do this for fun. I like all these folks, but do I care what they do? I attend more events than most people--to race. No one but relatives travel any distance to watch a SUP race. After the elites start their race, 99 percent of the crowd turns back to whatever they were doing until the finish. And the crowd is tiny to begin with. The biggest crowd I ever saw for a SUP race was the second BOP. After that, everything has been much smaller. NOT a spectator sport.
The presumption is that the R&D (that's kind of laughable) for elite racers would trickle down to weekend warriors. Doesn't happen to any significant degree. What DOES happen is a marketing boost from racing. Companies that build competitive race boards are percieved as being performance companies and can charge more for their boards.
The fundamental challenge SUP racing shares with most other racing is that it's boring to anyone but the competitors and their immediate boosters. The biggest problem with Jim Terrel's idea is that it would make SUP racing even more boring. You think racing attracts small crowds now, set even lower limits on potential performance and turn the small lead pack (still hard to keep track of in multi-lap races) into a broad wad and you won't get your mom to watch.
The greatest interest in equipment-based sports at the pointy end of performance is the progression of the equipment. Individual performance plateaus fairly early. SUP got strangled in the crib with premature board length restrictions. Width restrictions is only part of the big idea--the other restrictions are in where that width gets measured, which means the design pallette collapses to your choice of colors. No one in their right mind would want to be on such a board unless they were required to be, so open racing would be further divorced from elite racing.
So that's the way to really kill what little interest remains in SUP racing:
1. Make it more boring
2. Eliminate equipment perfance advances from the mix
3. Turn the elite equipment into something irrelevant to the rest of the world.
-
Of course the answer is that most people paddling a SUP could care less...
Ditto. SUP Racing is a fringe activity and it's rise and demise seems faster then the Longboard World Tour. Can't speak for the rest of the world, but stateside it really seems to have lost it's mojo. Ditto for downwinding as well. I've gone full circle, dumping my race boards for a do it all 9'5" Surf style board. I still want to go the fast, but I'm just as happy to go for a quick workout or cruise paddle on my x 32" wide board:)
-
^ Downwinding has lost it's mojo? DW seems more popular than it has ever been and more companies than before are now making DW boards. The DW market is a niche and will never compete for sales for all around boards, but it definitely seems to be getting more popular. Even inland.
-
This probably get academic quickly because I predict in two or three years we'll be saying "remember when there were purses for pro SUP racing?" Makes close to zero sense. Most times the money comes from peripherally connected companies with some marketing bucks. They believe they'll get a bunch of market mojo by sponsoring events, which only means that somebody in the marketing department likes racing and is avoiding counting results from the money spent. Sooner or later that will dry up, unless someone works their butt off to get new suckers.
I suspect most races will be local events, aimed at participants, not pros that fly in from wherever to try to pick up five grand and whatever their sponsors pay for wins. More fun anyway. As it is, the field is narrowing quickly in the US, with a few big races remaining. Too bad I guess, but we're getting past the "it's new, there are exciting business opportunities in this rapidly growing sport". Now we settle into the long haul, with some companies going away, and the market belonging to people who know how to run a business outside of hockey-stick growth models. SUP never experienced the explosive growth of windsurfing, which is good, because that killed windsurfing for a long time. But there's a lot of players that will never see profit, and others that will never gain share.
-
The DW market is a niche and will never compete for sales for all around boards...
You call it niche, I call it fringe; isn't that the same:)
"Mojo" referred to the racing scene and the "ditto for downwinding" was for the "fringe activity". I guess my grammatical construction could have been better.
-
If I were concerned about gear discouraging people from racing, I'd be more concerned about race boards costing over $3k than I would about how wide they are. Ironically, making a board narrower is probably the most cost-effective way of making it faster.
-
On the weekend we had a nice warm sunny day and there was about 15-20 boards milling about our local beach. Most all stayed within 200m of dry land.
Comparatively my wife and I paddled a couple of miles offshore around an island - as we often do for relaxation fitness and fun. A bit far for most in sloppy conditions - but something we regularly do on our 14s.
Probably not one of the 20 SUP paddlers cares what Connor paddles - or even knows who he is. They have no desire to paddle a 21" or 23" or 25" board. They just want something for the kids to bash around - while they tan at the beach. Preferably not too pricey - stable durable and not too heavy and bulky. Often that is a 11' surf shape package from Costco. Some more daring buy from a dealer - and paddle that 12'-6" maybe a quarter mile away from land. Almost all do not want to buy or use a 14 - it is just too big and bulky to load up the few times they use their boards. Most buy inexpensive inflatables - for ease of loading and dropping on the ground and grinding on the rocks and sand.
So no need to worry about pricey 1% elite narrow carbon boards killing the sport. Not around here anyways. Most have no desire to ever pay top $ for a new carbon board. Most would probably laugh and choke at the price.
-
So no need to worry about pricey 1% elite narrow carbon boards killing the sport.
Eagle--I know you're talking about the typical paddler, not the racer. But I'd say your description also fits with what everyone I know around here who races thinks. People I know who race started out paddling whatever board they first had, then as their skills and interest developed they decided to get boards that performed better--or maybe a better way of putting it is that the moved up to boards that allowed them to take advantage of their improving skills.
Other than for the best racers here, I don't even think that moving up a place or two in race results even matters to people nearly so much as having a board that lets them reach their potential, because that's enjoyable. And of course for every mile they paddle in a race, they're on that same board for 100 miles in their daily paddling.
Most racers here probably don't know top racers' names, and if they do, only a few of them know what boards they use. And of the few that know that, I think the general view is admiration that someone can manage so well on a narrow board--not jealousy, resentment, or anything negative at all. Inspiration, certainly.
I can't think of a single person I know, including every racer I've ever met, who would feel bothered that top racers are on extremely narrow or expensive boards, that they might not be able to afford or balance on themselves. Where are all these people who are being driven from racing because of those boards? If it's really a problem, we should all know at least a few.
-
I'm not sure anyone was suggesting that people won't race because they feel resentment towards elite racers' choice of boards, were they? I'm
Not sure where that came from.
I think mostly we seem to be agreeing. It's not clear that racing is going to continue to expand, although the recreational uses of SUP seen secure, including surf, downwind, fishing, fitness and maybe yoga, touring, maybe whitewater etc etc. Part of the reason why racing might get left behind is the cost of the equipment, the loss of the novelty of it, but also maybe the amount of time you'd have to invest before you could race anything vaguely resembling what the winners will be paddling. And I think that for many us, 21" wide might be the point where we finally accept that we are too old, or came to SUP too late, or are simply too big, to be able to approximate what the top guys and girls are doing. For some of us, our "line in the sand" will be 21" wide. For others it will be next year, when the 19" wide boards come out. Or the year after. Does it matter? Well, it doesn't seem to matter much to many people here. But if you were eg. Jim Terrell or Connor Baxter, it might matter to you a lot.
If you did happen to care, then there would be lots of ways to keep race participation high. But none of the systemic requirements that would be necessary for such a thing to happen (like a generally accepted worldwide governing body for SUP racing) are in place. Accordingly, the outcome seems almost inevitable. I suppose it's just surprising that the various stakeholders in SUP racing aren't discussing action to try to protect that little niche of SUP that they live so much, and for some, whose livelihoods depend on it.
The most profitable SUP board company right now is presumably Red Paddle (?). And only a tiny fraction of those profits will come from their raceboard line. They could probably stop selling their "race" SUPs altogether and hardly notice it. Maybe someday they will. Or maybe racing will actually be saved by iSUPs, because we sure as hell can't afford the hard raceboards.... And now we can't stand on them either :)
-
There is another way of looking at things... because there's always another way.
There "used to be" a limit on board length and width, but the width limitation went from 23" to 21" or something, but what if I told you that I could get a 23" shaped and glassed that pretty much no one could stand on???
You see, length limitation is a bit silly, but board width limitations are completely POINTLESS!
Just think about it: do you think you could stand on a 14' x 23" built with a hull that's completely rond? Perhaps the Connors, Kais and Travis could, but you still couldn't - so I am very glad that this "so called" limit was reduced, and yes, I am super happy that a 21.5" board from Starboard is on the market.
In fact, I am actually happier that this new Sprint 14x21.5 happens to have a really nice bow that really cuts water well.
But please remember that removing limits doesn't hurt racers; it only hurts the top athletes who are still going to be in front. Top athletes deserve more respect... let them have some fun too.
-
I don't think that anyone here has said that they think that there should be minimum board widths for racing. Jim Terrell said that, but we haven't.
I'm probably like most people here: I occasionally take part in a race as a social thing. I do OK compared with my peer group, but I'm never going to bother the top racers. Nor would I be willing to put in the training required to do so even if I was physically capable of it, since that would mean, for me, substantially, dropping recreational SUP and turning something that represents freedom and "playing" into just another thing in life that has to be scheduled, monitored and planned.
So it personally wouldn't impact upon me at all if there was never another SUP race anywhere in the world. But I'm interested in the fact that people for whom racing is extremely important (and there are a few out there) don't seem to be interested in finding a solution to the stalling of SUP racing. One issue - and it is only one of many - relates to board specifications, perhaps. And the introduction of a 21.5" wide production board is a convenient point to resurrect that discussion.
I thought that the 21.5" custom board I tried was fantastic. If my balance was good enough I'd certainly get one (especially since it was much cheaper than a carbon production board). As noted above by my UK colleague, boards that width have already been used for a couple of years here in the UK anyway. So Starboard isn't breaking any new ground here, and it's not a significant development other than perhaps being one indication of where racing is going, whether it wants it or not.
And that is the point: even if everyone agreed that there should be a minimum width, there would be no mechanism by which that could be implemented. And that's how we ended up with the 12-6 and 14ft classes, which some bigger guys have said in the past is a reason they don't race. So we kinda sleepwalked into the current regulations, which many don't like, and now we are sleepwalking into raceboards that 99% of people won't be able to stand on. I have no idea if that's a good thing or not - and it doesn't matter a jot to me either way - it it is just interesting to see how a community can end up in a situation that many within it might not like, without any real debate happening. It seems that most posters here have already accepted that SUP racing will become a niche oddity like Olympic canoeing. How curious that there is a sense amongst the racing community that it is completely powerless to influence the course of the sport they love.
-
If I were concerned about gear discouraging people from racing, I'd be more concerned about race boards costing over $3k than I would about how wide they are. Ironically, making a board narrower is probably the most cost-effective way of making it faster.
With under 25" wide boards you can start using 38" wide carbon ($15/yd) and save about 25% over 50" wide ($20/yd) per running yard. $50 savings for one layer 5.9 oz carbon top & bottom on you 14 footer...If your board is not ridiculously thick....
-
I am with Pono Bill and Photofr on this one. Nobody cares about racing. I love it. But in the bigger picture of sup it is meaningless. And yes, width restictions are pointless if you are free to make the hulls rounder and rounder.
Jim Terrel's article is thoughtful and sincere but I think it misses on a few points.
Marathon canoeing in the US and Canada is close to dead, despite adopting just the sort of dimensional restrictions he is calling for. And no, it is not because the boats got more expensive. It is mostly because there are other things for young people to do these days. Many more exciting sports, Internet, etc. one thing that dimensional restrictions did to marathon canoe was destroy innovation. A new race boat model seems to come out about once a decade. The Jensen v1 has been winning races for 30 years or so. Innovation is dead in that sport.
What happened to ICF kayaking when the dropped the width restriction? The boats got faster and more stable and stopped looking stupid, but there was not an exodus of people leaving the sport.
Terrel comes from Olympic flat water canoeing, which with all due respect, is probably the stupidest paddle sport on the planet. The boats are useless and nobody paddles one outside of a few elite training clubs in a couple dozen countries. This is in contrast to Olympic flat water kayaks, which are widely paddled by amateurs in Europe, South Africa, and Australia, and can be taken down class 3 rapids in the right hands. So of course he is terrified that SUP could end up as horrible as Olympic high kneel canoeing. But that seems unlikely to me. Lack of restrictions on surfskis and rowing shells have not made those sports ridiculous.
-
Since this is about the 21.5" new Starboard Sprint board, I thought I would add a few facts (for those who are interested).
The new board 14x21.5 is more stable than my 17.6x23.
On flat water, it's almost as stable as my 14x23 Sprint, or at least very close to it.
The hull closely resembles that of the Allstar.
The nose is completely different.
The tail is wider than ever, making turns faster.
The Sprint has finally been modified, after 3 years of nearly no modifs.
People who will love that new board:
Top racers on flat water.
Lighter paddlers, including women.
Recreational paddler who want to continue to work on their balance on the flats.
Perhaps muffled is the 14x23 Sprint that has also been modified (hull, nose and tail). That board should make people realize that if you can handle a 14x25 in Open Ocean, you WILL in fact easily handle this new 14x23 Sprint in flat water.
Anyway, thought I'd share the above, for it's quite interesting to see a board geared towards lighter paddler too.
-
I'm sure this is blasphemy to some...but getting the masses involved...I never quite figured that out in any sport...hasn't worked out so well for surfing (windsurfing, Kites)...overcrowded breaks, no place to park, and the aggression that goes with it.
That's exactly the point. SUP doesn't suffer the geographical restrictions that surfing requires and doesn't have the same level of technical demands kiting does so it has a massive and potentially wider appeal. This all said, I suspect a significant percentage of the sport want it to remain elistist and smaller in scale.
-
So no need to worry about pricey 1% elite narrow carbon boards killing the sport.
If it's really a problem, we should all know at least a few.
The sport is still on an upward trajectory with an identity crisis so it may be too soon to judge. I'm certainly seeing a big swing locally to where I am for mid pack guys moving from race boards in the 26-28 inch range down to 23-25. Having not paddled much of the latter, I can't say with any robustness if those boards are beyond the skill of the average racer.
However, just to add something else in the mix - guess what our biggest attendance was in any one class in the UK last year ? - Naish N1sco one design. I'm going to be slightly biased (as I'm on their team this year), but the N1sco national champs in the UK this year are slated to see over a 100 paddlers. We have never had a single event in the UK that has had anywhere near that in the 12'6 or 14 hard board class so there is obviously some appeal or defining factor for the expansion here in one design racing.
-
Since this is about the 21.5" new Starboard Sprint board, I thought I would add a few facts (for those who are interested).
The new board 14x21.5 is more stable than my 17.6x23.
On flat water, it's almost as stable as my 14x23 Sprint, or at least very close to it.
The hull closely resembles that of the Allstar.
The nose is completely different.
The tail is wider than ever, making turns faster.
The Sprint has finally been modified, after 3 years of nearly no modifs.
People who will love that new board:
Top racers on flat water.
Lighter paddlers, including women.
Recreational paddler who want to continue to work on their balance on the flats.
Perhaps muffled is the 14x23 Sprint that has also been modified (hull, nose and tail). That board should make people realize that if you can handle a 14x25 in Open Ocean, you WILL in fact easily handle this new 14x23 Sprint in flat water.
Anyway, thought I'd share the above, for it's quite interesting to see a board geared towards lighter paddler too.
Something I'd like to ask - I still have a 2014 sprint in the 26 inch width and at my size and weight (6ft 3 and 94Kg), its at the limit I'm currently happy with in a mass start race. However, I am curious about the 2016 23 inch wide sprint. With its improved shape, is a board that narrow still going to be beyond me ? I'm also worried that manufacturers just aren't producing boards in a high enough volume for larger paddlers.
-
Since this is about the 21.5" new Starboard Sprint board, I thought I would add a few facts (for those who are interested).
The new board 14x21.5 is more stable than my 17.6x23.
On flat water, it's almost as stable as my 14x23 Sprint, or at least very close to it.
The hull closely resembles that of the Allstar.
The nose is completely different.
The tail is wider than ever, making turns faster.
The Sprint has finally been modified, after 3 years of nearly no modifs.
People who will love that new board:
Top racers on flat water.
Lighter paddlers, including women.
Recreational paddler who want to continue to work on their balance on the flats.
Perhaps muffled is the 14x23 Sprint that has also been modified (hull, nose and tail). That board should make people realize that if you can handle a 14x25 in Open Ocean, you WILL in fact easily handle this new 14x23 Sprint in flat water.
Anyway, thought I'd share the above, for it's quite interesting to see a board geared towards lighter paddler too.
Something I'd like to ask - I still have a 2014 sprint in the 26 inch width and at my size and weight (6ft 3 and 94Kg), its at the limit I'm currently happy with in a mass start race. However, I am curious about the 2016 23 inch wide sprint. With its improved shape, is a board that narrow still going to be beyond me ? I'm also worried that manufacturers just aren't producing boards in a high enough volume for larger paddlers.
Since this is about the 21.5" new Starboard Sprint board, I thought I would add a few facts (for those who are interested).
The new board 14x21.5 is more stable than my 17.6x23.
On flat water, it's almost as stable as my 14x23 Sprint, or at least very close to it.
The hull closely resembles that of the Allstar.
The nose is completely different.
The tail is wider than ever, making turns faster.
The Sprint has finally been modified, after 3 years of nearly no modifs.
People who will love that new board:
Top racers on flat water.
Lighter paddlers, including women.
Recreational paddler who want to continue to work on their balance on the flats.
Perhaps muffled is the 14x23 Sprint that has also been modified (hull, nose and tail). That board should make people realize that if you can handle a 14x25 in Open Ocean, you WILL in fact easily handle this new 14x23 Sprint in flat water.
Anyway, thought I'd share the above, for it's quite interesting to see a board geared towards lighter paddler too.
Something I'd like to ask - I still have a 2014 sprint in the 26 inch width and at my size and weight (6ft 3 and 94Kg), its at the limit I'm currently happy with in a mass start race. However, I am curious about the 2016 23 inch wide sprint. With its improved shape, is a board that narrow still going to be beyond me ? I'm also worried that manufacturers just aren't producing boards in a high enough volume for larger paddlers.
Since this is about the 21.5" new Starboard Sprint board, I thought I would add a few facts (for those who are interested).
The new board 14x21.5 is more stable than my 17.6x23.
On flat water, it's almost as stable as my 14x23 Sprint, or at least very close to it.
The hull closely resembles that of the Allstar.
The nose is completely different.
The tail is wider than ever, making turns faster.
The Sprint has finally been modified, after 3 years of nearly no modifs.
People who will love that new board:
Top racers on flat water.
Lighter paddlers, including women.
Recreational paddler who want to continue to work on their balance on the flats.
Perhaps muffled is the 14x23 Sprint that has also been modified (hull, nose and tail). That board should make people realize that if you can handle a 14x25 in Open Ocean, you WILL in fact easily handle this new 14x23 Sprint in flat water.
Anyway, thought I'd share the above, for it's quite interesting to see a board geared towards lighter paddler too.
Something I'd like to ask - I still have a 2014 sprint in the 26 inch width and at my size and weight (6ft 3 and 94Kg), its at the limit I'm currently happy with in a mass start race. However, I am curious about the 2016 23 inch wide sprint. With its improved shape, is a board that narrow still going to be beyond me ? I'm also worried that manufacturers just aren't producing boards in a high enough volume for larger paddlers.
Well, he's going to say "that board will be fine for you, as long as you have the ability", isn't he? After all, photofr us basically a Starboard marketing employee. And salesmen never say a board is wrong for anyone.
Having said that, these newer designs are indeed a lot more stable than previous boards.
Which boards is it that you think might have too little volume? I'm more often thinking they have too much. For instance, I was looking at the Mistral Equinox the other day. It's 14x24.5" and was listed at 321 litres. That's the same volume as my Naish 17x26.75" unlimited board (that many bigger guys say is extremely stable for them). 321 litres will float over 700lbs (or about 300ish kilos, ie. three times your weight). Now, of course at 700lbs the board would be completely submerged. But at half that, which is still an extremely big guy, about half the board's volume will be above water.
Flotation is a funny thing. Most people can't even sink a 2ft beachball. Just a beachball has more than enough volume to float you.
So, it's not really about volume, is it? It's more about the distribution of it. If you had a 200L board that was a catamaran design like the SIC Standamaran, it would still be stable for big guys, because the volume is at the rails. There used to be a Jimmy Lewis 12-6 called the slice that has "sloping" rails like on a boat, which meant that the heavier the paddler, the wider the board was at the waterline, so naturally "adjusting" for paddlers of different weights.
So, anyway, this is a roundabout way of saying that volume really isn't the issue for bigger guys - it's more about the design specifics. So you just have to try them, really. It's all going to be about the trim at different weights, and I doubt if even the board's designers really know just how well that will work at different weights until they build a prototype.
-
@UKGM
Area10 is right about a few things, but too bad he still doesn’t get it: I am NOT an employee of Starboard, and definitely not their rep. In fact, the only thing I REP is this:
NELO SURFSKIS - and they are coming to France!
(perhaps Area10 needs to lay off a bit more)
I just tell it how I see it, and speaking of “seeing”, here’s my take on Starboard boards and larger paddlers:
Most Starboard are built for heavier paddler. Looking at specs alone, you can see that SB offers more volume than most manufacturers. Most Starboard boards have huge sidewalls, and the Sprint 2016 14x23 has sidewalls that are about 125% taller than their Allstar model. Put them side by side on the rack, and that will become super clear.
In fact, I will go as far as to say that until the 2017 Sprint 14x21.5 comes out, there’s only one board that is actually a good match for a super light paddler: the Unlimited 17.6x23.
Will the 2016 14x23 float you?
Without a doubt, and I know this from paddling extensively with a giant who’s taller and heavier than you. Basically, floating you isn’t going to be an issue.
Flat water?
Depending on your ability, you may enjoy the 14x23 Sprint – I know this French paddler that I referred to as a giant above who swear by it: it is in fact his favorite board.
Open Ocean?
There’s a small chance that you will like the board if your balance is exceptional, however, it’s far more likely that you will hate this board because it isn’t really meant for open ocean/heavier paddler combo.
In 2016, the Sprint 14x23 is still one of the top 4 faster boards in the world for flat water racing. You will find the new model more stable than the 2014 Sprint, and its dug out stance will make you feel a lot more at home.
-
@UKGM
Flat water?
Depending on your ability, you may enjoy the 14x23 Sprint – I know this French paddler that I referred to as a giant above who swear by it: it is in fact his favorite board.
Open Ocean?
There’s a small chance that you will like the board if your balance is exceptional, however, it’s far more likely that you will hate this board because it isn’t really meant for open ocean/heavier paddler combo.
In 2016, the Sprint 14x23 is still one of the top 4 faster boards in the world for flat water racing. You will find the new model more stable than the 2014 Sprint, and its dug out stance will make you feel a lot more at home.
I was wondering if anyone has gone from the 2014 sprints to the 2015 and 2016 models and can comment on the stability differences. Me knowing what an elite paddler with the agility of a cat isn't going to help someone like me that has a high centre of gravity, is competitive but at an intermediate stage of paddling.
-
Like I was saying: The guy named Hervé M. from France is heavier and TALLER than you. He swears by his Sprint and has owned the 2014 and 2015 models. The 2016 is identical to the 2015, short of the red nose.
He is, however, a heck of an athlete. He's just very recently bought a board considered hill-fitting for him: the Unlimited 17.6x23 in an effort to work and improve his balance.
I have no doubt that the 2016 Sprint 14x23 is faster than your 2014 Sprint 14x26 in itself, but only YOU will be able to tell if it is faster with YOU on it. If you cannot overcome balancing issues with any board, you will inevitably be slower with a narrow board.
-
Like I was saying: The guy named Hervé M. from France is heavier and TALLER than you. He swears by his Sprint and has owned the 2014 and 2015 models. The 2016 is identical to the 2015, short of the red nose.
He is, however, a heck of an athlete. He's just very recently bought a board considered hill-fitting for him: the Unlimited 17.6x23 in an effort to work and improve his balance.
I have no doubt that the 2016 Sprint 14x23 is faster than your 2014 Sprint 14x26 in itself, but only YOU will be able to tell if it is faster with YOU on it. If you cannot overcome balancing issues with any board, you will inevitably be slower with a narrow board.
Yep, get that. As I've mentioned, i'd be interested in those that have gone from the 2014 sprints to the 2015 or 2016 as a comparison.
-
The firest board I built was not fun and slow so I put him in the shade and cut him to two took of 10 cm and put him back together now he is 60 cm in the widest point and I can paddle him just when it's flat I want him for practices but it's to much for me my .I swim next to him very nice.
-
Before dishing out 3500 euros + 120 for shipping, I spent a lot of time asking people about their feedback on the 2016 Sprint. Turns out, getting any information was lengthy and scarce. I finally found two people who took some time off their busy schedule.
I am just sharing what I have learned: it's very simple.
The 2016 Sprint is more stable than the 2014 model.
The narrow stance found on the 2014 14x23 Sprint is a thing of the past on the 2016 model. The 2016 provides a cutaway standing area, which in turns provides a nice "natural" handle.
-
I have a 14x22 Riviera that gives me a slight flatwater speed advantage (~0.1 kph) over my 14x23.75, despite the 22 being non-carbon and a couple pounds heavier.
Another local racer who I used to beat by about 30 seconds in our 5k time trials when he was on a 14x25 Boga closed most of that gap by going to a 14x23 Hovie custom. Now he has gone even further to a 14x21.5 ultra-light Hovie custom. In the most recent time trial he beat me by 30 seconds, averaging 9.5 kph for 6 km. Yikes! His board is 17 lbs and eggshell thin, though. I'd be nervous to own it (and broke).
I took my 14x22 to an 8.5 km race in the ocean last weekend, where there were breaking waves and some light onshore winds creating small chop. I struggled a bit and started falling at the end of the race, and placed exactly the same (6th) as I did in the same race last year when I was on a 14x27 Fanatic Falcon. I'm not sure how much was the board and how much was just my lack of prep for the conditions, but it seems that I found my own "limit" for how narrow was still beneficial to go. I hope I can make the board work better in rough water after more time on it, but for now I'm probably better choosing at least the 23.75" wide for rougher stuff.
http://jimbodouglass.blogspot.com/2016/06/sup-race-report-fl-state-paddleboard.html
Racing seems to be doing well here in Florida regardless of the equipment arms race. Local races, sup clubs, etc. are providing a way for people to get into the sport without having to buy the fancy stuff right away.
-
Before dishing out 3500 euros + 120 for shipping, I spent a lot of time asking people about their feedback on the 2016 Sprint. Turns out, getting any information was lengthy and scarce. I finally found two people who took some time off their busy schedule.
I am just sharing what I have learned: it's very simple.
The 2016 Sprint is more stable than the 2014 model.
The narrow stance found on the 2014 14x23 Sprint is a thing of the past on the 2016 model. The 2016 provides a cutaway standing area, which in turns provides a nice "natural" handle.
Yep, I beat Starboard to the punch on that one - here is my board here with its custom cut outs last year: https://www.supboardermag.com/2015/10/02/marginal-gains-sup-race-board-modifications/
p.s. which width are you saying from 2016 is more stable than the 2014 as the widths were different (2014= 28, 26 and 24, 2016= 23).
-
I find the 2016 Sprint more stable than the 2014 Sprint at 24".
Love your thinking outside the box UK, and the modifs you made to the board.
-
For me the sprint 14x23 was only stable in flat water. During a race I did a lot of swimming ;)
So I switched to a 14x25 Sidewinder and I'm happy. 19km race, 10 km race and 8 km downbreezer with no falling.
21.5 Sprint I can't imagine with my 6.3 and 202lbs ;)
-
Yes, it is almost three years to the day when Jim Terrell wrote his influential article on the future of SUPS racing:
http://www.supracer.com/the-death-and-rebirth-of-sup-racing/ (http://www.supracer.com/the-death-and-rebirth-of-sup-racing/)
It seems to me that pretty much everything he predicted is slowly happening. I have no reason to think that the final outcome that he warns about won't happen too.
Jim was spot on.
Here was my own article I wrote on the subject on Supracer and (aside from the 4 metre class proposal) agree with Jim wholesale.
http://www.supracer.com/the-board-class-debate-again/ (http://www.supracer.com/the-board-class-debate-again/)
SUP's beauty (in fact the whole reason I tried and left surfskiing and moved to SUP) was that its accessibility and gentle learning curve would mean racing would eventually be well attended. Boards this narrow will kill that off.
ukgm--I thought Jim Terrell had lots of good points, but disagreed with others, and didn't like his solution. So I was prepared to dislike your article. Instead, I thought it was quite good. Your board modification article was interesting, also. It's one thing to think about ways to improve a board. It's another to follow through and hack into it.
-
...
What happened to ICF kayaking when the dropped the width restriction? The boats got faster and more stable and stopped looking stupid, but there was not an exodus of people leaving the sport.
...
If you only knew how reglemented bicycles are...
6.3 kg min and the shape (hey! even the brakes - hot topic these days)
Recuminant and all other kinds of steeds could be much much faster etc etc. But, hey, there is something practical about the bike in its current form (same same since 100 years)
-
Nice article Area10.
A quibble here. While i understand the argument about unlimited racing giving advantage to wealthiest teams and racers, that is only a threat in sports where there is great wealth and complex technology, such as cycling and ocean sailboat racing. In paddle sports there is neither wealth nor is there complicated technology. Take surfski for example. The top racers compete on skis that you or i could buy at a store tomorrow. And there is no price difference between fast tippy boats and slow stable boats. Practically, there is a point at which making a vessel longer and narrower yields no further benefit, and going beyond this actually makes things slower. In surfski this is 21' long and 17" wide. Any manufacturer is free to go longer or narrower but they dont as the skis get slower. Rowing is also unrestricted, and for the same reason all shells are pretty much the same dinension. I suspect unlimited SUP would follow in that mold with board lengths and withs finding an optimum near 17'x22". There would be a value in the simplicity and unfettered "purity" of such an unlimited approach I feel.
-
Of course no one really knows what's going on with racing, whatever folks say is just a SWAG based on their own experience and prehaps a few things they've read. I'm just talking about guesses and what I've experienced. One thing I've never seen is board envy. The notion that if only somehad the board that lucky bastard has, why they'd be much faster. People paddle what they have, and whatever they choose to.
For the most part, people buy whatever race board they feel the comfortable on, or whatever is cool when they happen to buy a board. And then they keep it for a relatively long time. Issues of "latest, greatest" only come up when they're considering a new board. I've never seen the kind of yearly equipment tradeout that I've seen with windsurfing and kitesurfing, which is kind of strange, because the so-called "expensive" SUP boards cost a fraction of what I've seen ordinary kite and wind surfers spending.
-
For the most part, people buy whatever race board they feel the comfortable on, or whatever is cool when they happen to buy a board. And then they keep it for a relatively long time. Issues of "latest, greatest" only come up when they're considering a new board. I've never seen the kind of yearly equipment tradeout that I've seen with windsurfing and kitesurfing, which is kind of strange, because the so-called "expensive" SUP boards cost a fraction of what I've seen ordinary kite and wind surfers spending.
That sounds very accurate. When Jim Terrell pushed for a new board class, he dismissed the issue of 12-6 and 14' boards being made obsolete by saying race boards become obsolete in two years anyway. Could be true for the elite racers, but not the majority. His statement showed a disconnect with the typical racer. Most people I know race on boards older than that. In fact, many race on used boards that were two or more years old when they first got them.
-
For the most part, people buy whatever race board they feel the comfortable on, or whatever is cool when they happen to buy a board. And then they keep it for a relatively long time. Issues of "latest, greatest" only come up when they're considering a new board. I've never seen the kind of yearly equipment tradeout that I've seen with windsurfing and kitesurfing, which is kind of strange, because the so-called "expensive" SUP boards cost a fraction of what I've seen ordinary kite and wind surfers spending.
That sounds very accurate. When Jim Terrell pushed for a new board class, he dismissed the issue of 12-6 and 14' boards being made obsolete by saying race boards become obsolete in two years anyway. Could be true for the elite racers, but not the majority. His statement showed a disconnect with the typical racer. Most people I know race on boards older than that. In fact, many race on used boards that were two or more years old when they first got them.
Yep, I agree with this. You'd have an already weak secondhand market saturated with a race board that would have no market to sell to.
-
...
What happened to ICF kayaking when the dropped the width restriction? The boats got faster and more stable and stopped looking stupid, but there was not an exodus of people leaving the sport.
...
If you only knew how reglemented bicycles are...
6.3 kg min and the shape (hey! even the brakes - hot topic these days)
Recuminant and all other kinds of steeds could be much much faster etc etc. But, hey, there is something practical about the bike in its current form (same same since 100 years)
6.8 and a absolute nightmare of a governing body that doesn't know how to apply its own rules (or write them properly). Don't even get me started on those guys - I've been on the wrong side of dubious calls there more than once.....
-
^^ they forgot to write "no motors"?
-
Before dishing out 3500 euros + 120 for shipping, I spent a lot of time asking people about their feedback on the 2016 Sprint. Turns out, getting any information was lengthy and scarce. I finally found two people who took some time off their busy schedule.
I am just sharing what I have learned: it's very simple.
The 2016 Sprint is more stable than the 2014 model.
The narrow stance found on the 2014 14x23 Sprint is a thing of the past on the 2016 model. The 2016 provides a cutaway standing area, which in turns provides a nice "natural" handle.
Yep, I beat Starboard to the punch on that one - here is my board here with its custom cut outs last year: https://www.supboardermag.com/2015/10/02/marginal-gains-sup-race-board-modifications/
p.s. which width are you saying from 2016 is more stable than the 2014 as the widths were different (2014= 28, 26 and 24, 2016= 23).
He may have been inspired by you - UK racer Pete Holliday made even more extensive modifications to the Starboard Sprint. In addition to cutting out the sides in the standing area, he also cut out the sides nearer the tail to give his back foot more room when stepping back on buoy turns. The rear cutouts seem like a great idea as buoy turns were weak area for the Sprint. He also cut out some of the raised deck just in front of the standing area. Here's a good video of the modifications:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz66nz5P94o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz66nz5P94o)