Standup Zone Forum
Stand Up Paddle => Gear Talk => Topic started by: ukgm on June 09, 2016, 04:28:03 AM
-
Does anyone know if the Starboard Allstar is changing for 2017 ? The new sprint was seen at Lost Mills but I wonder if anyone had any inside track on whether the Allstar is changing for 2017. Opinion on the 2016 board and some (albeit not robust) testing has indicated the 2016 board has a nose that doesn't like flatwater so much made me wonder if they might go back to something more piercing ?
-
I dunno about nose changes but doubt, as an allwater board, that they'd go to more piercing. Piercing noses are not your friend in downwindy stuff. Also not so user friendly if you're caught in "racer chop" for us normal peeps stuck in mid pack.
I have heard the concaves will be even more pronounced... and aren't loved by all.
-
Virtually all design solutions result in pros and cons. We have heard a lot about the undoubted advantages of the 2016 All Star's bottom concaves (eg. improved tracking and stability). But what are the downsides? There must be some, surely? How do they affect surfing or manoeuvring for bumps, or performance in cross-winds and cross-chop ?
-
I believe the 25" & 27" inch wide 14's will be replaced by 24.5" wide and 26" wide. Other than that, I don't know anything, which is normal for me.
At 6'1" and 195lbs, I don't think I'd ever go narrower than my 25" wide 2016. I think my weight and balance skills are right at the breaking point with the 25" wide. The 26" wide version next year is enticing for me as a friendlier winter downwind board when I really don't want to go swimming as much.
There is a guy my weight in Canada who time-trial gps tested the 2016 23", 25" and 27" and the results were interesting. There was almost no speed penalty between the 25 and 27 (flat water.)
-
I believe the 25" & 27" inch wide 14's will be replaced by 24.5" wide and 26" wide. Other than that, I don't know anything, which is normal for me.
At 6'1" and 195lbs, I don't think I'd ever go narrower than my 25" wide 2016. I think my weight and balance skills are right at the breaking point with the 25" wide. The 26" wide version next year is enticing for me as a friendlier winter downwind board when I really don't want to go swimming as much.
There is a guy my weight in Canada who time-trial gps tested the 2016 23", 25" and 27" and the results were interesting. There was almost no speed penalty between the 25 and 27 (flat water.)
The 25 was tempting for me but I didn't pull the trigger as I felt the new nose design cut down it's versatility in races. If there is going to be a 26 though, thats a tempting prospect and a good size option for a much bigger market across a range of waterways. I'm not convinced about no difference between a 25 and 27 on flat water though - I like to see the methodology for that.
p.s. how do you find the 25 on both flatwater and open water ?
-
Be warned, I am Starboard "team racer" and get my boards at a discount. However, the last 2 seasons I have raced Starboards that I have bought at full price when I wasn't "sponsored."
I've only had the 25" wide 2016 Allstar for 3 weeks, but here's my brief findings. It likes to get up "on top of the water" and thats when you see the gps speeds start to creep above 6mph on the flats. But like a lot of boards, as soon as you tire out/fatigue and the board "sinks" the speeds go back to avg. I think where this board excels is the versatility. It catches tiny bumps with very little effort, and the new nose design is less affected by other board wakes and side chop. In a medium downwinder it punches through waves, and I still felt the need to brace expecting it to pearl like a lot of other race boards, but it doesn't. I've never been a stellar buoy turn guy, and this board feels a bit "twitchy" when I step back to pivot. Still getting used to it however. It tracks very well, perhaps because of the multiple concave channels, but I'm not smart enough to know if thats the reason. As far as the flex everyone talks about, I hardly notice it and really expected it be much more noodle like at my weight. While it does flex if I jump around on it, I never notice it during my stroke. In comaparison my old Bark Dominator and M&M were much softer. I raced the 2014 Allstar last season, and this is a huge improvement over a board I really already liked.
Here is the brief data from my Canadian friend…A guy who has raced for at least 8 years. Naturally it is not conclusive and it was a brief test, and you have to throw out the anomalies.
-
As noted before - was told that the 25 was probably going to drop down to 24.5 next year - with no major design changes.
SB tried a more piercing shape in the 2015 Race - and dropped that board. We tested that board as well in the 14x25 and found that board to be less stable than the AS 23. A sponsored SB rider concurred with our assessment.
The trip concaves provide a side platform to stabilize on before tipping too far - and my wife easily paddled the 25 upwind. I found the 25 too stable - so preferred the 23. My wife really liked the 25 as she was very fast on it. If we got one however - it would probably be the 23 CS. We are both lightweight riders.
Fortunately the 4 boards we have provide a sufficiently wide spectrum for our uses - but we could use a narrower board - on occasion.
The feel of the SB All Star has changed a lot over the years - as they try to find the right AW mix for a one quiver board. The 23 provides a less splashy nose - is efficient enough - and is stable enough. The 25 would work - but is not as efficient.
-
your weight?
-
Probably no heavier than Kai or any of the top young riders competing. :)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QCpQ2rE9hU
Trevor Tunnington talks about the latest Starboard All Star as he tests it our in Oregon, USA.
Cheers, MArko
-
Trevor Tunnington talks about the latest Starboard All Star as he tests it our in Oregon, USA.
Cheers, MArko
It might be the camera angle but the nose looks slightly more elegant than the 2016 version. I'd like to see footage of it moving at race pace to see if the nose whiskers have calmed down a bit.
-
Virtually all design solutions result in pros and cons. We have heard a lot about the undoubted advantages of the 2016 All Star's bottom concaves (eg. improved tracking and stability). But what are the downsides? There must be some, surely? How do they affect surfing or manoeuvring for bumps, or performance in cross-winds and cross-chop ?
Had a fun 20 knots DW last night on my 2016 Allstar x 27. I agree with others that it picks up bumps v easy and the nose didn't really give any probs - it seemed to punch through and pop up quite nice - little bit of slowing but nothing to worry about and I never got thrown off.
I think the concaves work really well on getting it up on a plane and with overall stability but not convinced they are a great thing for side chop and cross current and the big volume nose etc certainly isn't ideal for side winds - give me my M14 any day of the week for a proper DW. My pal had a quick shot after paddling his M14 and he felt that the Allstar had a good turn of speed but interestingly he fell off - got caught by the concaves I think. I suppose you get used to how one board handles and jumping on another straight away can catch you out.
Now I ain't a good DWer by any means - fairly limited experience - but I come from a surfing background and I far prefer being on the M14 when on a wave. The Allstar feels like a barge compared - disconnected almost maybe due to its volume and big ass.
But, I keep reminding everyone - it is an all water race board not a DW specific machine so it will have limitations. But overall - very nice board - versatile.
-
Adding more volume to the nose and adding side chines - plus adding a tail kick pad for 2017. Personally have found the 2016 14x23 CS to be spot on as is and would not change a thing. Have paddled ours a lot the past month and really like it in AW ocean conditions and winds to about 12 kts. The board is simply fantastic for that - and have not paddled a more efficient board. The AS23 is 4.3% faster than our Dominator over 5 miles - and has a peak sprint speed of 7.2 mph for an old man with crappy balance. As a light weight rider though - I find the nose volume is already plenty -> and adding side chines looks to make the 23 tippier than it is already.
For any full-on 25 kt DW action up in Squamish - would not dare bring up the 23 unless we wanted a crazy challenge. The Bullet 14V2 and especially M-14 are truly perfect solutions when powering and slicing across short period swells with their low profile surf nose designs. The bulbous cutting boof of the AS23 is much better optimized for flatter and more docile conditions.
Not shown in the vid -> but the 2017 Sprint in 21.5 should be wickedly fast on flat - so long as you can keep 100% power down. Probably perfect for Connor and his peers with much better balance -> and better strength to weight ratios.
-
Think you nailed it there Eagle.....these Allstars are very good but have limitations when it gets a bit more windy. I bet the narrower boards are fast.
-
Any chance that for 2017 they can 1) put the handle at the balance point and 2) elongate the fin box so that it will accept normal fins? Those are my two regular gripes with the 2016.
-
Any chance that for 2017 they can 1) put the handle at the balance point and 2) elongate the fin box so that it will accept normal fins? Those are my two regular gripes with the 2016.
Ditto to number 1..... I don't know anyone who has one that is perfectly balanced.....with the fin in. Totally amateur of Starborg.
-
I find that on the 23 CS the handle is about 3" too far forward with a very lightweight carbon SIC Weedless 7.0 fin in place. Maybe with fin and leash it is about 24.5 lbs total. Even off balance a bit - it is ok to carry for about 100m - then easily throw onto the vehicle.
About the fin box - it fits 7 out of 8 different fins we have. The other fin could probably be modified - but is too big anyways. So basically just use the SIC 7.0 all the time now. With the 23 it is very sensitive to fin size and shape DW. Smaller is better to minimize broaching angling across and down swells. Any bigger fin has a tendency to catch. The 23 with the small SIC fin is a killer proven setup for quick upwind DW runs round these parts.
Out of our boards the Dom is balanced nice with strap. The SB Touring is spot on. The Bullet is very close to perfect. And the M-14 is off the most. So some get it right and some do not. This is with fin and leash.
-
I have the "carbon hybrid" which is of couse a fiber glass board with a couple strips of carbon down the rails. 29 lbs before leash fin and handle. It is a beast. Fun to paddle. Not fun to carry.
I paddle lakes mostly. By the end of summer the paddies of eurasian milfoil are so thick you can practically cross a lake on snowshoes. Futures Redfish is the best fin by far that I have found. Noticibly faster through weed than the futures keel which is the next best i have found. Required about 2 hrs of work to fit, including glassing in an area several inches forward to hold a new pin. Also took about 10cm2 off the tail to get it to go in. I dont think the sic weedless woukd cut it around here by the looks if it. Looks like a good fin though.
-
Yeah - hear you about the weight. Our SB Touring full carbon is 27.5 w/o fin and our M-14 glass I-beam is 28 w/o fin. We can definitely feel every single pound on the carry and loading singlehanded. In the ocean round here we have basically zero weeds or kelp floating - so our options are really good in regards to fin shapes.
Have tried the Futures keel - but in the ocean here - that fin was not deep enough angling down waves. It is quite amazing the difference between fin profiles shapes and weights. And once you find what works - you are set. We have 12 fins total -> 2 Elites 2 SIC 8.3s and 3 SIC 7.0s. The 7.0 is our most used fin on all our boards by far. The shape is very versatile forgiving and predictable.
-
At the mo I like a bigger fin in my boards ......stability and some tracking makes it easier for me handling chop, side swell etc. But I am 6 ft and 90 kg plus wetties etc.
-
Yep stability and tracking can be very useful. But the problem is that the fin can catch angling down waves -> especially on the 23. So our fin choice is based on that - since we mostly go upwind then DW on that board. On flat the Gladiator Elite works great for tracking whereas the SIC 7.0 zig zags.
-
Just coming back to a previous post by Area 10 asking about those concaves on the new Allstar and any effects on cross currents etc.
I had paddled my Allstar recently in similar conditions to yesterday on which I took the m14 out. The M14 made cross currents much easier IMHO.....I didn't feel like the board was tripping or being grabbed at all. Now, I can't say for sure it is the concaves (maybe other design features?) but for me anyway a flat planning hull with rounded sides is easier to handle that stuff. (And much better to DW on full stop.)
Just my take of course - I like the Allstar but it is going to be my training/light chop board from here on.
-
The big concave at the fin seems to create turbulence and can trip when faced with side forces. But if the board has enough forward speed the tripping problem is reduced and the board moves into good tracking mode. So once there is good flow around the fin - the concave becomes beneficial.
Compared to the M-14 -> the 23AS is much more technical to ride as the concave tail does not slip much vs a flat tail. So your assessment is spot on coldsup. Every design has a pro and a con aspect - and no one single board will ever be best in all conditions.
For instance the 2017 side chines would just make the 23 just that more tippy as there would be less bite from the hard edges currently in place on the 2016. Maybe ok for Connor and his peers with alien balance. But not ok for paddlers with average crappy balance. Seems like the 2017 AS23 will be as tippy as the 2015 Race 25 that was deep sixed for the average consumer. The new AS23 will be an extremely small market board for those with exceptional balance.
-
Few videos released about the boards:
https://youtu.be/3QCpQ2rE9hU
https://vimeo.com/180079635
-
Few videos released about the boards:
https://youtu.be/3QCpQ2rE9hU
https://vimeo.com/180079635
Another big increase in the Allstar volume by the looks of things. Good for bigger paddlers like me. I wish they'd maintained a useable sprint board (like the 2014 26 inch width) though. They missed a trick there as the 23 or 21 just won't suit typical paddlers of 85kg+
-
unless your current board was under water if the outline,width and length is the same adding volume will just be above the water line so would not make a huge about of difference to how it floats you. Volume is important up to a point but unless you way about 200Kg you only really need to consider the shape of the board and whats going on above the water line and how that will effect the stability and performance and not the actual volume
-
When I heard they are making the nose bigger I just thought - why on earth - huge already!
There is too much volume in the x 27 for the likes of me already - 90 kg plus and it doesn't like side winds - so I am guessing most use this board in milder conditions.
I have really come down to thinking lower volume boards are better.....
-
^^^ you are spoiled with your Jimmy Lewis M14!
Those pointy ski jump noses come right out smooth if you poke. Bigger volume noses will carry less water on deck for less time in v choppy upwinds. I guess that's the main reason for them. Will make a difference in races.
-
In all fairness, I don't think that the biggest changes for 2017 will be noticeable on the Allstar. The 2017 Sprint seems like it will have a much bigger impact.
Seems so odd that the Unlimited Sprint had a true piercing nose... while all the 12 and 14 footers Sprint boards didn't - but wait 'til you see the brand new Sprint 2017. :)
-
^^^ you are spoiled with your Jimmy Lewis M14!
Those pointy ski jump noses come right out smooth if you poke. Bigger volume noses will carry less water on deck for less time in v choppy upwinds. I guess that's the main reason for them. Will make a difference in races.
Yup - I guess you are right - if I actually raced I may be coming to a totally diff conclusion. I do agree that the Allstar is good upwind...
-
When I heard they are making the nose bigger I just thought - why on earth - huge already!
There is too much volume in the x 27 for the likes of me already - 90 kg plus and it doesn't like side winds - so I am guessing most use this board in milder conditions.
I have really come down to thinking lower volume boards are better.....
Yep, as I've said many times before, most places where SUP is big around the world have milder conditions (in every way) than you are paddling in - or most of coastal UK is. Our waters are choppy, windy and cold with huge tidal effects and big currents, and in many places the wind is onshore for a lot of the time. We probably paddle in conditions that 90% of the world wouldn't even bother to go out in. So it's not surprising if the majority of boards don't suit our conditions particularly well. Plus, fast raceboards are not built to be fun to paddle, just as a track race car isn't comfortable to drive. It's all about speed not paddling enjoyment.
It's surprising how many thousands I've had to spend to learn this pretty obvious lesson. Many new purchases have been a triumph of hope over experience. Or indeed, common sense :)
-
unless your current board was under water if the outline,width and length is the same adding volume will just be above the water line so would not make a huge about of difference to how it floats you. Volume is important up to a point but unless you way about 200Kg you only really need to consider the shape of the board and whats going on above the water line and how that will effect the stability and performance and not the actual volume
i
Whilst you are obviously right, I'm assuming that a board is designed to provide a particular hydrodynamic profile based on a particular displacement. Whilst the board won't sink, you might get a cm or two of extra displacement if you're Ealing with a heavier paddler and then impact on its optimised profile...... if board companies actually design their boards with that level of refinement. I don't know.
-
unless your current board was under water if the outline,width and length is the same adding volume will just be above the water line so would not make a huge about of difference to how it floats you. Volume is important up to a point but unless you way about 200Kg you only really need to consider the shape of the board and whats going on above the water line and how that will effect the stability and performance and not the actual volume
i
Whilst you are obviously right, I'm assuming that a board is designed to provide a particular hydrodynamic profile based on a particular displacement. Whilst the board won't sink, you might get a cm or two of extra displacement if you're Ealing with a heavier paddler and then impact on its optimised profile...... if board companies actually design their boards with that level of refinement. I don't know.
I could prity much garentee they don't use anything special to design the boards to that level. Even if you paddled on glass every time a sup moves around and is efected far more than any program could calculate and if there was a program I would have hoped by now they wouldn't be all making such huge changes by now
-
I suspect that the board designers have tended to hear more "great, more volume to float me" responses than "oh dear, too much volume" as they have changed designs over the last 8 years or so. So there is a kinda "volume inflation" thing going on at the moment. But for those of us who paddle in choppy windy waters, there is very definitely a thing called "excess volume" for a particular rider.
But we are a minority. People who paddle pure flat water in winds rarely more than 10 knots are unlikely to complain about too much volume, I'd guess. Or at least, it wouldn't be top of their concerns.
It's nice to see that the new Naish Maliko, despite having gained a few litres since last year, still isn't a crazy big volume. If you are going to be downwind surfing, excess volume is as detrimental as it would be on a prone surfboard. Rarely would a 175lb person use a surfboard that would float someone who is 275lbs.
-
I suspect that the board designers have tended to hear more "great, more volume to float me" responses than "oh dear, too much volume" as they have changed designs over the last 8 years or so. So there is a kinda "volume inflation" thing going on at the moment. But for those of us who paddle in choppy windy waters, there is very definitely a thing called "excess volume" for a particular rider.
But we are a minority. People who paddle pure flat water in winds rarely more than 10 knots are unlikely to complain about too much volume, I'd guess. Or at least, it wouldn't be top of their concerns.
It's nice to see that the new Naish Maliko, despite having gained a few litres since last year, still isn't a crazy big volume. If you are going to be downwind surfing, excess volume is as detrimental as it would be on a prone surfboard. Rarely would a 175lb person use a surfboard that would float someone who is 275lbs.
If this is true, then why do many board companies specify a max paddler weight when the volume of the board would float well in excess of that limit ?
-
I suspect that the board designers have tended to hear more "great, more volume to float me" responses than "oh dear, too much volume" as they have changed designs over the last 8 years or so. So there is a kinda "volume inflation" thing going on at the moment. But for those of us who paddle in choppy windy waters, there is very definitely a thing called "excess volume" for a particular rider.
But we are a minority. People who paddle pure flat water in winds rarely more than 10 knots are unlikely to complain about too much volume, I'd guess. Or at least, it wouldn't be top of their concerns.
It's nice to see that the new Naish Maliko, despite having gained a few litres since last year, still isn't a crazy big volume. If you are going to be downwind surfing, excess volume is as detrimental as it would be on a prone surfboard. Rarely would a 175lb person use a surfboard that would float someone who is 275lbs.
If this is true, then why do many board companies specify a max paddler weight when the volume of the board would float well in excess of that limit ?
I think area 10 may have a point--that adding some volume is viewed as a positive that will make a board work for more people, without being viewed as a detriment to anyone.
That's an interesting question about companies specifying paddler weight. One thing about that--companies like Naish and Starboard tend to be conservative about max. paddler weights. Heavier-than-recommended people with any experience can do fine. The less respected companies are the ones who seem to say, "Perfect for paddlers up to 350 pounds", etc.
I also wonder if the "volume inflation" is partially a result of 14' being short for heavier paddlers, but nobody wanting to buy longer boards (or at least companies thinking that). Since they can't go longer, they blow up volume. If the standard were 15', or if there weren't quite a few paddlers over 200 lbs., I don't think there'd be so many blimpy boards being made.
-
Exactly right IMO, pdxmike. I actually think that maybe 15ft is the optimum length for the broadest range of people, for a fixed fin board. It is even still possible for the average person to surf a 15ft board, but by the time you get to 16ft you are starting to need some decent surf skills to turn the thing, and windage and weight can become a problem for the less powerful. Consider this: The K15 didn't seem too long. Too heavy for sure, maybe too wide by today's standards. But not too long. That was the length that a couple of highly respected designers thought would work best in flat water, and even mild downwind, before the tyranny of the 14ft race class took hold. I reckon they may have been right.
-
It appears the 2017 models are changing volumes as follows: 28 dropping 11L - 27 increasing 11L - 24.5 increasing 21L - and the 23 increasing 10L.
Would expect the changes for the 2017 AS to allow more heavier riders to race the 23 and 24.5 even more successfully. Those racers must have a reasonable balance to power ratio though - to be fast on the 23. If their balance is average - they will have a very tough time in cross chop and reflected slop. The 23 width is simply not stable in those garbage conditions - 23 is narrow. But judging from the BW video and Gorge race results TJ noted -> the 23 was on the podium consistently so it is indeed a very fast race design with proven results. The 23 apparently was very popular for that group of racers.
From my use - the 2016 model AS23 is tippy and fast enough in winds to 15 kts. And would expect most old average riders with crappy balance to come to a similar conclusion. The addition of new chamfered edges should make all the AS boards tippier and slightly faster - provided the board stays fully powered up. So perfect for younger paddlers with better balance. If the chamfered edges reduce stability enough though - the 2016 model might be better for some. The 25 moving down to 24.5 has the most volume increase - and should be the most popular width for most weekend racers. It should be plenty stable even with the chamfered edges - be faster - and not pearl at all. The 24.5 will probably be the most popular and most versatile width. Not super efficient - but not slow either - a good compromise width for most with good stability. For me though the 23 has the right efficiency.
-
Perhaps Elite paddlers racing or using a 23" board have been loosing weight over the years... not gaining weight. One reason of many as to why more volume for new boards may not be necessary.
-
It appears the 2017 models are changing volumes as follows: 28 dropping 11L - 27 increasing 11L - 24.5 increasing 21L - and the 23 increasing 10L.
That's a gulf in sizing though between the 24.5 and a 27. That 27 needed to be a 26.
-
It appears the 2017 models are changing volumes as follows: 28 dropping 11L - 27 increasing 11L - 24.5 increasing 21L - and the 23 increasing 10L.
That's a gulf in sizing though between the 24.5 and a 27. That 27 needed to be a 26.
They might be aiming at two different sets of buyers rather than sampling different ends of the same sample of people. In other words, the range may consist of two boards (27 and 28) for people who want all-round touring/racers, or big downwind/open ocean, and then the rest (narrower widths) aimed at the bulk of competitive racers who want a board firmly oriented to flat water, mild chop, downbreezing, and technical racing, ie. for typical race conditions round the world. It might be that a 26" wide board would not appeal to either group, being too narrow for one, and too wide for the other.
-
It appears the 2017 models are changing volumes as follows: 28 dropping 11L - 27 increasing 11L - 24.5 increasing 21L - and the 23 increasing 10L.
That's a gulf in sizing though between the 24.5 and a 27. That 27 needed to be a 26.
It might be that a 26" wide board would not appeal to either group, being too narrow for one, and too wide for the other.
A10 your conclusion is probably valid. LC as a 6' midweight assessed the AS25 like this - "This stand up paddle board is incredibly stable" ... "It feels stable like a 30” recreational SUP. No joke. But it sure doesn’t perform like one…" ukgm - have you had a chance to paddle one?
http://www.supracer.com/starboard-all-star-stand-up-paddle-board-review/
-
It appears the 2017 models are changing volumes as follows: 28 dropping 11L - 27 increasing 11L - 24.5 increasing 21L - and the 23 increasing 10L.
That's a gulf in sizing though between the 24.5 and a 27. That 27 needed to be a 26.
It might be that a 26" wide board would not appeal to either group, being too narrow for one, and too wide for the other.
A10 your conclusion is probably valid. LC as a 6' midweight assessed the AS25 like this - "This stand up paddle board is incredibly stable" ... "It feels stable like a 30” recreational SUP. No joke. But it sure doesn’t perform like one…" ukgm - have you had a chance to paddle one?
http://www.supracer.com/starboard-all-star-stand-up-paddle-board-review/
Sadly not. However, at my size I'm not a fan of such a narrow stance width.
-
Sadly not. However, at my size I'm not a fan of such a narrow stance width.
If you have a chance - maybe try the current AS25. Though not really as stable as a 30" recreational board - it is just slightly less stable than our 27.5 Dominator. So the 25 may surprise you if you try it. It kinda actually feels more like a 26.
-
The latest video update on the 2017 Starboard Allstar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PQjmgC6JoQ
-
The latest video update on the 2017 Starboard Allstar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PQjmgC6JoQ
Awful marketing pseudo-science testing. I'm also a little confused about the new chamfered rails. Connor seems to suggest it will make it more stable but I thought that would reduce it ?
-
20 seconds faster over 6 minutes means almost 3.5 minutes faster over an hour.
Bullshit.
-
If not sure about getting a 2017 - there are a few 2016 boards still available. Here are a couple -
1 2016 AS23 new retail reduced $3221 plus tax Cdn
2 2016 AS25 used/new CL $2499 no tax Cdn
Prices are much better than full retail - with major depreciation in the first year for CS. Personally the AS23 CS is a fantastic board if you want to go fast and improve your balance. The new chamfered mods for 2017 should make the board actually tippier vs more stable - but maybe a touch potentially faster if you can balance at 100%. Effectively the board for 2017 will have a rounder underbody shape - compared to the current triple concaves and hard edges.
And do not believe that the board will be that much stronger with CS. The CS board lay-up is very light and can ding quite easily. Somewhat comparable to the old 2014 Sprint. The carbon outer skin is very thin. Do like the weight - but would actually prefer a board a couple pounds heavier with more carbon material. Durability is much more important to us than too light a weight. The SIC SCC lay-up comparatively seems thicker and stronger and better - and only a couple of pounds heavier at 26.5. Nevertheless get the AS23 - it is simply a super fun board.
-
The latest video update on the 2017 Starboard Allstar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PQjmgC6JoQ
Awful marketing pseudo-science testing. I'm also a little confused about the new chamfered rails. Connor seems to suggest it will make it more stable but I thought that would reduce it ?
Well, if the 2017 board is 20 secs faster than the 2016 one over such a short distance, then the 2016 board must have been total crap...
No "built-in flex" this year? Now stiff makes you go faster whereas bendy was fast last year? The video still seems to show a lot of "porpoising" (aka pitching) as Connor puts the power down. I find it hard to believe that a board can sink it's tail so much with each stroke and still be truly efficient.
I'm waiting now to see the video of Kai Lenny explaining the design of the 2017 Javelin. After all, it makes much more sense to have a young paddler explain the design rather than the person who actually designed it... doesn't it? ;) Still, if you pay for your athlete to go around the world to races and "live the life" then I guess they'd be all right with saying pretty much any old crap that you asked them to, wouldn't they?
Porpoise with purpose. It's the Starboard way...
-
Well, if the 2017 board is 20 secs faster than the 2016 one over such a short distance, then the 2016 board must have been total crap...
No "built-in flex" this year? Now stiff makes you go faster whereas bendy was fast last year? The video still seems to show a lot of "porpoising" (aka pitching) as Connor puts the power down. I find it hard to believe that a board can sink it's tail so much with each stroke and still be truly efficient.
I'm waiting now to see the video of Kai Lenny explaining the design of the 2017 Javelin. After all, it makes much more sense to have a young paddler explain the design rather than the person who actually designed it... doesn't it? ;) Still, if you pay for your athlete to go around the world to races and "live the life" then I guess they'd be all right with saying pretty much any old crap that you asked them to, wouldn't they?
Porpoise with purpose. It's the Starboard way...
I'm holding out for the 2018 model, which should have even more concaves and will put the 2017 model to shame! :D
-
^^ 7 concaves. We want 7
and more volume in the nose
(http://www.supracer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Nicolas-Jarossay-Stand-Up-Paddle-Transatlantique.jpg)
-
Aww cmon - get real about this. 7 or more concaves is not at all practical for an AW board that is sea creature like. With its built-in flex properties now relegated to absurdity and obscurity - at least the 2017 board is much stronger and way faster that the outgoing 2016. What about is organic descriptors? Why no more for 2017?
As a master marketer and spokesperson extraordinaire - you must trust whatever is stated or written. Always. Even though it clearly appears he is paddling with less effort on one board vs the other. No matter. His self timed speed test on his very accurate GPS Garmin watch to the hundredth of a second no less must surely be valid 5:42.54 milliseconds. Is undoubtedly valid. It was timed.
The 2017 is truly amazing and you will feel an instant glide. You will think it is more tippy according to physics - but it is in fact a lot more stable. Really. And according to the precise timing of the Garmin watch - the 2017 time was 5:24 -> so 20 seconds faster. There. Proof. Haha to all you naysayers. The 2017 clearly wins this timed speed test. By a large margin. And yes the 2016 is that much slower. Obviously. Simple math. ;D ;D ;D
-
The latest video update on the 2017 Starboard Allstar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PQjmgC6JoQ
Awful marketing pseudo-science testing. I'm also a little confused about the new chamfered rails. Connor seems to suggest it will make it more stable but I thought that would reduce it ?
Well, if the 2017 board is 20 secs faster than the 2016 one over such a short distance, then the 2016 board must have been total crap...
No "built-in flex" this year? Now stiff makes you go faster whereas bendy was fast last year? The video still seems to show a lot of "porpoising" (aka pitching) as Connor puts the power down. I find it hard to believe that a board can sink it's tail so much with each stroke and still be truly efficient.
I'm waiting now to see the video of Kai Lenny explaining the design of the 2017 Javelin. After all, it makes much more sense to have a young paddler explain the design rather than the person who actually designed it... doesn't it? ;) Still, if you pay for your athlete to go around the world to races and "live the life" then I guess they'd be all right with saying pretty much any old crap that you asked them to, wouldn't they?
Porpoise with purpose. It's the Starboard way...
I haven't likely been in the sport as long as you guys but I have to say I'm growing tiresome of the annual 'NOW MORE SPEED' and 'MORE STABILITY' claims. Cripes if every new board is so much more stable than the last, I'll be able to bounce up and down on the rails and not make it move at this rate.
As for Starboard, I was initially impressed with their annual turnover of new designs and lamented the other firms who didn't (and therefore seemed lazy with their R&D). However, I've realized that the boards being produced are not always better - just tailored to different conditions - and it is starting to seem annoying that the PR being released is so weak and superficial as (in my view) actually undermine what is - a lot of the time - good product.
-
its been the same for years the problem is i think the companies are more interested in selling people a new board every year than they are in actual refining designs and doing real development but that but that is just there marketing strategy, Its just the people with big wallets who are weak and easy lead/fooled by the laughable marketing and pimping that fall for it or the young guys and girls who are asked to be "sponsored riders" where really they are still paying for the boards just at a reduced rate in exchange for being a marketing whore doing 5 daily Facebook or Instagram posts with about 20 hash tags on each one being made to buy a new board every year.
Like you say the boards do vary and they all suit different conditions but saying that they are 5 or 10% faster and more stable year on year is just BS. I watched a video of some one reviewing a board the other day who described the differences however claimed they would do something that would do the exact opposite.
personally all the hype and pimping you see on here totally de values a brand and i have a lot more respect for the smaller companies like infinity,kings,deep etc who just get on with it and leave the board to talk for them selfs in a hole more classy act.
-
personally all the hype and pimping you see on here totally de values a brand and i have a lot more respect for the smaller companies like infinity,kings,deep etc who just get on with it and leave the board to talk for them selfs in a hole more classy act.
I don't so much mind a designer explaining the benefits of their new design as I do their "radically" redesigning their boards every year and claiming that each redesign is tons faster in all conditions than the previous iteration. Why would I want to buy a board that, by the designer's own hype next year, will be totally obsolete?
I much prefer companies like SIC, which put a lot of work into developing shapes built to endure, like the Bullet, and then make minor refinements from year to year or introduce new or significantly modified designs (e.g. the FX last year, or the wider FX models for 2017) that fit different niches. If I bought a Bullet V2 3 years ago, that board would still be just about as good a moderate downwind conditions board, even according to today's SIC market hype, as anything they make today. Any moderate refinements or additional models they've added to their lineup since then don't require disavowing the value of previous years' models.
-
Well, the upside is that every year we get to guffaw at Starboard's latest ludicrous attempt to undermine our trust in them.
But, in fairness to Starborg, no-one can say that the 2017 All a Star isn't an evolution of the 2016 one. And many people think that the 2016 All Star was a better all-rounder than the 2015 one. So, that is progress. Even if Starboard seem to be wanting to turn it into farce.
They really need to develop a better marketing strategy - one that enhances their credibility rather than undermines it.
-
personally all the hype and pimping you see on here totally de values a brand and i have a lot more respect for the smaller companies like infinity,kings,deep etc who just get on with it and leave the board to talk for them selfs in a hole more classy act.
I much prefer companies like SIC, which put a lot of work into developing shapes built to endure, like the Bullet, and then make minor refinements from year to year or introduce new or significantly modified designs (e.g. the FX last year, or the wider FX models for 2017) that fit different niches. If I bought a Bullet V2 3 years ago, that board would still be just about as
I don't so much mind a designer explaining the benefits of their new design as I do their "radically" redesigning their boards every year and claiming that each redesign is tons faster in all conditions than the previous iteration. Why would I want to buy a board that, by the designer's own hype next year, will be totally obsolete?
good a moderate downwind conditions board, even according to today's SIC market hype, as anything they make today. Any moderate refinements or additional models they've added to their lineup since then don't require disavowing the value of previous years' models.
Amen to that. $4,000 every year becomes a little bit of a problem......
-
I think I've spotted the biggest improvement between the 2016 and 2017 carbon All Stars; a drop of $500 in list price from $3899 to $3399 based on a couple of 2017 model ads. Personally I would keep my fingers crossed and wait for 2018.
-
its been the same for years the problem is i think the companies are more interested in selling people a new board every year than they are in actual refining designs and doing real development but that but that is just there marketing strategy, Its just the people with big wallets who are weak and easy lead/fooled by the laughable marketing and pimping that fall for it or the young guys and girls who are asked to be "sponsored riders" where really they are still paying for the boards just at a reduced rate in exchange for being a marketing whore doing 5 daily Facebook or Instagram posts with about 20 hash tags on each one being made to buy a new board every year.
From guys I know, the experiences with sponsors seems to vary considerably from the positively supportive approach of some companies to the ludicrously mercenary tactics of others (as you nicely illustrate). Such tales led me to possibly write an article on the subject later this year.
The reality is that when you are sponsored, you are (in reality) the junior partner in the relationship and that most arrangements should be clarified with a sponsor, up front, at the start, so that everyone knows what they are giving and getting. 9/10 of the problems I hear (whereby one or the other get disgruntled) was a lack of formalised agreement of any commitments at the front end and then someone becomes unhappy when something is sprung on them.
It's quite possible that next year I will be sponsored again but I only work with people I can genuinely contribute to (and I'm open up front with what I'm not so good at or not willing to do). There's no tangible glamour in being 'a rider' but there certainly isn't a free lunch either. If the arrangement isn't good, people should push back from the table and just say 'it's not for me'. The problem is (as you infer) that there are more than a few of us who take a deal thinking they're Kelly Slater.
-
Outside of a mere handful of the top athletes in the world, the sponsored rider thing is all about a business playing on someone's ego. It makes no financial sense for the rider: in the UK at least, if you worked out the contributions that sponsored riders get in terms of an hourly wage rate, it would probably be below the legal minimum wage. The sponsored riders would make more money doing a paper round. Many (perhaps most?) sponsored riders actually end up out of pocket, ie. it is costing them to be sponsored. This is not rational. It is driven by the riders' desire to be able to brag that they are a "sponsored rider". I guess we all have to find some way to feel good about ourselves, and that we are valued and belong, and many people are willing to pay for that.
-
Outside of a mere handful of the top athletes in the world, the sponsored rider thing is all about a business playing on someone's ego. It makes no financial sense for the rider: in the UK at least, if you worked out the contributions that sponsored riders get in terms of an hourly wage rate, it would probably be below the legal minimum wage. The sponsored riders would make more money doing a paper round. Many (perhaps most?) sponsored riders actually end up out of pocket, ie. it is costing them to be sponsored. This is not rational. It is driven by the riders' desire to be able to brag that they are a "sponsored rider". I guess we all have to find some way to feel good about ourselves, and that we are valued and belong, and many people are willing to pay for that.
Yes- aside from those actually getting paid (or remittance)..... and these are very few in number, it's really just the basic question of how much are you willing to help a board company out whilst then likely getting a discounted board in return. As I know you'll know, some in the UK are better at this than others. I know that in the UK, even the very best are paying some amount for their boards. There is the pressure of the year on year investment for doing so but not all board companies expect new gear every year though. The fact the best paddlers over here are all sponsored doesn't mean though that they are all ego-maniacs or stupid though. Some team deals I have heard about in the last week are ridiculous utterly though.
I can only speak from my own experience but the deals I got this year only supported what I was going to fork out for anyway and I was happy to support the brands in return where appropriate. All the brand reps I have engaged with are really good people, not outrageous in their needs and I would like to think I've given them a fair return on what they gave me. Plus, a lot of my output is writing based which I do as a hobby as well as for my profession so its no loss to me (and is certainly more fun than me doing a paper round !). The secret, as I said before, is not to whore yourself to a brand but to talk through with them what you'd like to do and see if that fits both of you. If it doesn't, walk away.
-
Well, some people do it to try to offset the costs of doing something they'd do anyway, for sure. And others are using it to build their CV because they want to go I to the Watersports business (or are already part of it at some level), or they will make money out of the fitness or coaching business more generally. For these semi-professionals the racing costs may well be eg. tax-deductible. So you can put a package of sponsorship deals together that will help support your sporting lifestyle.
But the price of that is almost certainly going to be that you have to do some pimping at some level. There are also likely to be other restrictions such as not being seen riding other brands' boards. It is amazing how energetically most riders throw themselves into those duties for such a small return. So there is probably another motivating factor at work IMO, which is to do with wanting to announce that you are sponsored, above and beyond what your sponsor expects. I find that you see this less in the full-time athletes than the amateur ones.
It's tougher for women I think, since they are judged so much more for their potential to sell clothing etc rather than just race performances.
-
But the price of that is almost certainly going to be that you have to do some pimping at some level. There are also likely to be other restrictions such as not being seen riding other brands' boards. It is amazing how energetically most riders throw themselves into those duties for such a small return. So there is probably another motivating factor at work IMO, which is to do with wanting to announce that you are sponsored, above and beyond what your sponsor expects. I find that you see this less in the full-time athletes than the amateur ones.
It's tougher for women I think, since they are judged so much more for their potential to sell clothing etc rather than just race performances.
I agree.
My own wish list of 2017 brands got pretty short once I listed my own objectives and I saw what the varying expectations from brands were. I certainly won't do the crap that some of the paddlers are doing (such as the awful Baxter 'board test') as I value my professional reputation more than a cheap board. As a result, that limits my own attractiveness to any sponsors as I'm not a prolific winner nor a 'name' either but there are plenty of other positive ways to support a brand that I have found attractive to some and don't lose either your integrity, take huge resources or require you to sell your soul.
I'll never use poor equipment though - I turned down a free board deal last year for that very reason. I won't hamper my own results to help polish my ego. The deal has to complement your racing but I love R&D and would snap a companies hand off to get that kind of opportunity - purely for my own enjoyment.
-
If you really think about it, sponsored, paid, unpaid, amateur... and anyone else giving feedback must adhere to a few unspoken rules. The one that seems to get broken more often than not is:
Always tell the truth about any product.
The good news is that the truth always comes out (eventually).
Perhaps people do not realize how their "good name" is affected when a simple lie is told, when exaggerations are made, or inaccurate data is presented.
It would be fantastic to have an independent Race Board testing center. There would be two results, so as to ensure that different riders' expectations are met.
- one for top notch athletes
- one for the average Joe (who's not a beginner)
-
..... Its just the people with big wallets who are weak and easy lead/fooled by the laughable marketing and pimping that fall for it or the young guys and girls who are asked to be "sponsored riders" where really they are still paying for the boards just at a reduced rate in exchange for being a marketing whore doing 5 daily Facebook or Instagram posts with about 20 hash tags on each one being made to buy a new board every year.
Like you say the boards do vary and they all suit different conditions but saying that they are 5 or 10% faster and more stable year on year is just BS. I watched a video of some one reviewing a board the other day who described the differences however claimed they would do something that would do the exact opposite.
personally all the hype and pimping you see on here totally de values a brand .....
That vid would have been better to have the designer or SB distributor rep sell their soul and pimp - and not sacrifice young Connor.
We all know most of the exaggerations are major bs anyways. But to have Conner say what he said - was over the top silly for any "speed test".
Any board or paddle or fin that has clear anecdotal claims - plus slags the previous year product - and has yet again zero cons -> often is complete 100% bs. That basic marketing garbage should backfire.
A better approach is to just post race results and let the board do the talking. Cheap marketing with anecdotal claims and crap just brings heavy and deserved criticism.
Too bad because the 2016 is not a slug as he basically purports.
-
..... But the price of that is almost certainly going to be that you have to do some pimping at some level. There are also likely to be other restrictions such as not being seen riding other brands' boards. It is amazing how energetically most riders throw themselves into those duties for such a small return .....
Would not like to ride only one brand - day after day. That would basically take all the fun out of SUP for us. We actually love riding our different boards from different brands whenever we want. That is freedom. Each one has something special to offer - and each has its own specific set of pros and cons.
To continually pimp to some degree -> would become extremely tiresome in short order. Forget that bs nonsense. If you cannot freely state what is wrong with a board paddle or fin - you are pimping. Very master servant like. ;)
-
I was able to test the 2017 Allstar 14x24.5 last weekend.
Planned as a downbreezer (windfinder said 20 kts), we changed the plan because to less wind. So we did 7km upwind and 7km back downwind.
I'm a beginner, 6.3 tall and 202 lbs.
First impression was that the allstar is a little bit tippier than the Sidewinder. But just for the first minutes. The secondary stability is better. Maybe because the recessed deck? How ever, the conditions were choppy and the allstar is very stable. I didn't fall to swim and for me that is great with a new unknown board. It was easy to paddle and to hold the speed.
With the Sidewinder it's easier to go straight ahead but maybe this is the different fin setup or the conditions.
The allstar feels faster than the Sidewinder but I have to make some further tests.
I like the Allstar so much that I bought it right away.
-
While we tease and joke about the silly grade school marketing of the brand - the AS is actually an incredible design compared to older versions pre-2016.
Buying a 24.5 on the spot is making a pretty strong statement considering you just bought the SW25 recently. As a beginner 6.3 and 202 - and a previous Sprint 23 owner - the 24.5AS must have been a really nice board for you.
It seems that 24.5 may become the new 27 race width for many possibly. I know for me - the 23 is perfect though. Not too tippy and not too slow. Just right in fact. Perfecto! :)
-
I don't think it's the great marketing of Starboard, but because I'm a equipment freak ;-)
The Sprint 14x23 was a very short liaison, which had worked only in perfect conditions. In the first race I just went swimming. Half a year of paddle experience was not enough for this board (for me ;-).
The Sidewinder is super good-natured and was perfect to get first racing experience. The Allstar will hopefully be the next level and I am hopefully a little faster than with the Sidewinder.
Your reports on the Allstar I liked to read and I was already clear that some time an Allstar must come :D
-
While we tease and joke about the silly grade school marketing of the brand - the AS is actually an incredible design compared to older versions pre-2016.
Buying a 24.5 on the spot is making a pretty strong statement considering you just bought the SW25 recently. As a beginner 6.3 and 202 - and a previous Sprint 23 owner - the 24.5AS must have been a really nice board for you.
It seems that 24.5 may become the new 27 race width for many possibly. I know for me - the 23 is perfect though. Not too tippy and not too slow. Just right in fact. Perfecto! :)
I still hadn't had the chance to try the new one. I still have a 2014 26 width 14 footer which (apart from starboards god awful durability that year) is a really quick board and great in all conditions. What I think Starboard has got right that other brands are getting wrong (and Mistral has recently adjusted for) is that the board volumes are not being set against the markets actual demographic. The typical paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina.
I am waiting for one of the big brands to jump on something like the Allison ventral fin concept - if only as a means of marketing to help rejuvenate what will be becoming soon, diminishing returns in board design.
-
…
What I think Starboard has got right that other brands are getting wrong (and Mistral has recently adjusted for) is that the board volumes are not being set against the markets actual demographic. The typical paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina.
…
Totally agree it’s a good idea to build boards for a larger spectrum.
Disagree that a typical ideal paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina. Look at the top 10 SUP athletes ranking and I’d guess they’re about 70 kg ish. With the amount of windsurfing Kai, Connor and Zane are doing they will muscle up and soon be 70kg if they aren’t already. Is that not a good indicator of your ideal build? And what manufacturers will centre R&D around?
You may not realise this but 70kg is a pretty average athletic build if you don’t live in the US, UK or Australia. In other words in a country that doesn’t allow feeding growth hormones to livestock.
BTW: “balance of a ballerina” funnily isn’t the best analogy. Dancers are tuned, ultra tuned, into non-moving balance. They take a longer time than others to adapt to flow sports.
-
…
What I think Starboard has got right that other brands are getting wrong (and Mistral has recently adjusted for) is that the board volumes are not being set against the markets actual demographic. The typical paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina.
…
Totally agree it’s a good idea to build boards for a larger spectrum.
Disagree that a typical ideal paddler is not 70kg with the balance of a ballerina. Look at the top 10 SUP athletes ranking and I’d guess they’re about 70 kg ish. With the amount of windsurfing Kai, Connor and Zane are doing they will muscle up and soon be 70kg if they aren’t already. Is that not a good indicator of your ideal build? And what manufacturers will centre R&D around?
I didn't say 'ideal' and this is the point - it's not about the ideal build, it's about the typical build of your paying consumers. If you look at the stats, BMI averages, etc,- Kai, Connor et all, do not look like the typical paddlers. A lot of boards are only dealing with the thin wedge of the market and race board sales are low as it is.
-
^ and I'm saying "depends where you live"
Your "typical" seems different to my "typical", and I'm the old fart in this conversation just BTW.
[edit to add] I am speaking about "typical build of your paying consumers". Speaking about what I see, demographically in my area. I do have some feel for it. I am working a bit with SUP sales and import/distribution but my main area of expertise is business intelligence, big data and data mining. So, spoken as an engineer.
We could take this demographics conversation to another thread if you wish. Again, I agree Starboard gets it in offering varied widths. Even if they don't get modern distribution in the slightest (yet another thread).
-
^ and I'm saying "depends where you live"
Your "typical" seems different to my "typical", and I'm the old fart in this conversation just BTW.
..... which is why I quoted demographics and other metrics such as BMI. They are not without flaws but are reasonably objective.
It's the middle of the pack paddler that brands need to be mindful about.
-
"You may not realise this but 70kg is a pretty average athletic build if you don’t live in the US, UK or Australia"
Or Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and many other countries.
-
^^ ::)
I'm talking race board riders. Starboard Allstar riders. And you?
…
It's the middle of the pack paddler that brands need to be mindful about.
For a race board? No, disagree, race boards are for racing.
Race boards represents a minute amount of total sales anyway. Just look at what Starboard imports to Europe. Top sellers? 10’6 “all-round”. Even inland. Why? Because the catalogue has them in the “all-round” section. No smarter reason. Race boards are not money makers for brands. Race boards are only useful for brand marketing.
Quoted demographics? BMI? You talking general public? While talking about race boards?
Big guys are not so much part of the branding image even for amateur racing in continental europe. France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria as far as I can tell.
Still, I agree on your initial point: it is nice Starby makes race boards for everyone. Good move.
-
You stated the average athletic build, not the average elite sup racing build in that statement and went on with a sweeping generalization. It's not just big guys. It's AVERAGE and that's the point. Someone made the point that a company is hitting the mark for including more of that average and you were going off in another direction.
-
^ check again. I said athletes.
The context being SUP, I presume.
[edit to add] good catch, you noticed I said athletes
-
Right. Of course.
-
I fully support all boards being designed around 70kg athletes. I hate getting smoked by dad bods.
-
I don't think it's the great marketing of Starboard, but because I'm a equipment freak ;-)
Your reports on the Allstar I liked to read and I was already clear that some time an Allstar must come :D
;D
-
While we tease and joke about the silly grade school marketing of the brand - the AS is actually an incredible design compared to older versions pre-2016.
Buying a 24.5 on the spot is making a pretty strong statement considering you just bought the SW25 recently. As a beginner 6.3 and 202 - and a previous Sprint 23 owner - the 24.5AS must have been a really nice board for you.
It seems that 24.5 may become the new 27 race width for many possibly. I know for me - the 23 is perfect though. Not too tippy and not too slow. Just right in fact. Perfecto! :)
I still hadn't had the chance to try the new one. I still have a 2014 26 width 14 footer which (apart from starboards god awful durability that year) is a really quick board and great in all conditions.
I am waiting for one of the big brands to jump on something like the Allison ventral fin concept - if only as a means of marketing to help rejuvenate what will be becoming soon, diminishing returns in board design.
You gotta try one when you can. And if need be - just cut in a few more fin slots and plop in some more fins.
-
I fully support all boards being designed around 70kg athletes. I hate getting smoked by dad bods.
;D
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161122/9bd92719129d26740264af90b59bab12.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161122/f6b11b3a26808eb19b2252959853002b.jpg)(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161122/848522d2815738c58ef85c18b786f147.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161122/1ab79bd47a344eb34508525ae2cabe55.jpg)
The new board is at my home place and the first paddle in flat water is done.
Actually I'm not faster than with the Sidewinder, but also not slower.
For me, pivot turns works better with the Allstar and also when drafting the board ist more good-natured.
Paddling straight is easier with the Sidewinder. I think, this is the result of the different fin position.
All in all the Allstar is a nice board ;)
-
While we tease and joke about the silly grade school marketing of the brand - the AS is actually an incredible design compared to older versions pre-2016.
Buying a 24.5 on the spot is making a pretty strong statement considering you just bought the SW25 recently. As a beginner 6.3 and 202 - and a previous Sprint 23 owner - the 24.5AS must have been a really nice board for you.
It seems that 24.5 may become the new 27 race width for many possibly. I know for me - the 23 is perfect though. Not too tippy and not too slow. Just right in fact. Perfecto! :)
I still hadn't had the chance to try the new one. I still have a 2014 26 width 14 footer which (apart from starboards god awful durability that year) is a really quick board and great in all conditions.
I am waiting for one of the big brands to jump on something like the Allison ventral fin concept - if only as a means of marketing to help rejuvenate what will be becoming soon, diminishing returns in board design.
You gotta try one when you can. And if need be - just cut in a few more fin slots and plop in some more fins.
I'm seeing more people say that but they never do more than one test run and have no margins of error.
-
You stated the average athletic build, not the average elite sup racing build in that statement and went on with a sweeping generalization. It's not just big guys. It's AVERAGE and that's the point. Someone made the point that a company is hitting the mark for including more of that average and you were going off in another direction.
Yes, this is my point exactly. If you look at a typical race field and note that only a small percentage are pro level, you need to think about someone 'seeing a board on the Sunday and buying on the Monday' syndrome. It's important to note that those buyers actually buying their own boards (and not being discounted as per a team rider) and this is where your profit lies. With that in mind, you need to be aware of who these middle of the packers are and making sure the board is at least reasonably suitable for them. Bear in mind a pro is going to be racing a board that is south of 24 inches now, it strikes me that it doesn't do a lot of harm to make sure the volume of your 25-26 inch range board is set up for your main demographics body mass - whatever that is. Mistral for example (and I know why) have sussed this for 2017 and is offering XL versions of their flatwater race boards. That's not a new concept though - kayaks and surf ski's have been doing this for years.
-
In any case, and as I've said ad nauseam before, many people would be faster on a wider board. I have got a Sidewinder 14x23. I'm actually quite a bit slower on it than I am on a Sidewinder 14x25. (It's OK, I deliberately bought the 23" wide one to challenge my balance, not to race with, so it is delivering what I want - the 25" wide one was actually too stable to be a "balance trainer".) If I WAS a racer, I'd have probably followed the advice that the marketing for the Sidewinder says (which specifically mentions the 23 for flat water) and I'd have bought the 23 rather than the 25, and found myself a lot slower than I would be on the wider board. A paddler is generally fastest on the board they feel most comfortable on, not the narrowest you they can stand on. There needs to be a "comfort margin". That's the most remarkable thing perhaps about the top racers - their comfort margin even on the narrowest boards you can buy (or narrower) is huge. As it happens, the previous owner of my 14x23 SW used it I think in the 11 cities race. I can't imagine doing that. My legs are wobbly after just 5 miles! But I am probably closer in ability to the average distance SUP purchaser than the previous owner.
Basically, most people will find that they cannot use the narrowest boards offered by a given manufacturer. But that's OK, there should be a place for elite boards for elite, light riders. If you are too big or too wobbly to use them, then don't. Most of the brands are bringing out their most popular models in a variety of widths and volumes. Just leave the nanoboards to the young nano folk. I've found the best narrowness/performance width trade-off for me, for most designs, and it is 26" wide. Below that are sharply diminishing returns for me. Everyone will similarly have their own cut-off point, and will need to find it by trial and error. But I think that many of the brands seem to be centering around that width (e.g. Naish Maliko, Bark Vapor, Bark D2, JL Rail etc) especially for all-waters type boards, and I suspect that they've got it about right. There are some designs that allow you to go an inch or sonnarrower and maintain the stability. But once you have got to the width where you don't have to lean to get the shaft vertical, as I say, there are diminishing returns for going narrower IMO.
Rather than getting annoyed by boards designed for nanopeople, larger guys should be campaigning for the return of the Unlimited class. Then they could go pretty much as narrow as they like. Having recently got a custom 16x24.5" it's going to be hard for me to see the point of buying shorter boards in the future. I was even surfing it a mile offshore in shoulder-high conditions a couple of days ago - fantastic!
-
Rather than getting annoyed by boards designed for nano people...
Or plain and simple just do what you and I did and order a custom. With
the ridiculous prices they charge for these boards, One could get a custom
made to fit their needs and body type and ask for some modification to a
template shape according to their experience and conditions they ride.
This is my upcoming custom. It a 14x24 @275ltr, 21-22lbr. Guess which maker and model?
-
^^ Allstar?
-
Looks like a Sidewinder or a Lokahi Vantage or a JP Austalia Race Downwind
-
Nice! I'd like one of those in a 26" wide please 😀
Yeah my recent purchase was a custom too. It's crazy that you can actually get customs made locally here in the UK for no more (or actually less) than a standard big brand Thailand factory production board. And it will be better made too. What on earth happened to "economies of scale'? It's disappeared in a maelstrom of middle-man margins I guess.
-
ukgm - no margins of error?
burchas - that custom kinda has a AS look.
A10 - would think that your SW23 will take a bit to get your balance point. I still remember the first time on my AS23 - I could only paddle about a mile before stopping and turning around. That was so lame - but 5 miles is really good. No doubt board widths are dropping - but smart brands stock many widths to cover the bases. Would think if you paddle your SW for a while - you will find all your other boards become ultra stable.
-
Rather than getting annoyed by boards designed for nano people...
This is my upcoming custom. It a 14x24 @275ltr, 21-22lbr. Guess which maker and model?
This is the new unreleased Infinity Blackfish with some modification.
a little more rocker line than the Allstar, especially nose rocker. Nose kick is a combination of Ace, NSP Puma. Less nose volume than
the Allstar and straighter outline Nose to tail. The Tail is also wider.
Of course the bottom is also very different. Deep tapering concave from tail
to mid-section, much more rounded rails tucking into the bottom creating a
a rounder shape from the mid section to the nose. And a Larry Allison 4 fin setup for good measures.
25% cheaper than AllStar and it will fit me better than any production Allstar or blackfish for that matter.
Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't make sense to go and order ahead a production board, unless of course you buy used one on a fire sale at the end of the season and get it right away.
Otherwise I'll get a custom. Pay less, get more and still support American workforce. Good karma built in.
-
Probs if I could not find a board that was good for me I would go custom - but every board I have ever paddled seems fine to me. Just different and tweak with a fin. Some tippier - some fatter - some faster - some bigger - all have their very own pros and cons. And all good for what they were designed to do and who they were targeted for. Same with skis and snowboards. The key for me was being able to always test them out before paying. Lucky here we always have a decent selection of boards except JL and Naish. Tons of used SB and SIC though. Maybe body weight has something to do with it - maybe balance - but all are stable given a bit of time. My wife and I are very average middle age paddlers with not so great balance. But do paddle when no one else goes out.
-
This is the new unreleased Infinity Blackfish with some modification.
a little more rocker line than the Allstar, especially nose rocker. Nose kick is a combination of Ace, NSP Puma. Less nose volume than
the Allstar and straighter outline Nose to tail. The Tail is also wider.
Of course the bottom is also very different. Deep tapering concave from tail
to mid-section, much more rounded rails tucking into the bottom creating a
a rounder shape from the mid section to the nose. And a Larry Allison 4 fin setup for good measures.
25% cheaper than AllStar and it will fit me better than any production Allstar or blackfish for that matter.
Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't make sense to go and order ahead a production board, unless of course you buy used one on a fire sale at the end of the season and get it right away.
Otherwise I'll get a custom. Pay less, get more and still support American workforce. Good karma built in.
NICE!!!
It looks like a cross between the Blackfish ST and the Blackfish DW.
I think that they are also preparing to release a flat water/ really fast Blackfish with a round bottom.
-
This is the new unreleased Infinity Blackfish with some modification.
a little more rocker line than the Allstar, especially nose rocker. Nose kick is a combination of Ace, NSP Puma. Less nose volume than
the Allstar and straighter outline Nose to tail. The Tail is also wider.
Of course the bottom is also very different. Deep tapering concave from tail
to mid-section, much more rounded rails tucking into the bottom creating a
a rounder shape from the mid section to the nose. And a Larry Allison 4 fin setup for good measures.
25% cheaper than AllStar and it will fit me better than any production Allstar or blackfish for that matter.
Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't make sense to go and order ahead a production board, unless of course you buy used one on a fire sale at the end of the season and get it right away.
Otherwise I'll get a custom. Pay less, get more and still support American workforce. Good karma built in.
NICE!!!
It looks like a cross between the Blackfish ST and the Blackfish DW.
I think that they are also preparing to release a flat water/ really fast Blackfish with a round bottom.
You are correct Luc. It is actually based on their rounded bottom flat water
prototype. Dave tamed the rails and bottom by few degrees to make it more
stable and than added the nose based on my specs.
-
This is the new unreleased Infinity Blackfish with some modification.
a little more rocker line than the Allstar, especially nose rocker. Nose kick is a combination of Ace, NSP Puma. Less nose volume than
the Allstar and straighter outline Nose to tail. The Tail is also wider.
Of course the bottom is also very different. Deep tapering concave from tail
to mid-section, much more rounded rails tucking into the bottom creating a
a rounder shape from the mid section to the nose. And a Larry Allison 4 fin setup for good measures.
25% cheaper than AllStar and it will fit me better than any production Allstar or blackfish for that matter.
Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't make sense to go and order ahead a production board, unless of course you buy used one on a fire sale at the end of the season and get it right away.
Otherwise I'll get a custom. Pay less, get more and still support American workforce. Good karma built in.
NICE!!!
It looks like a cross between the Blackfish ST and the Blackfish DW.
I think that they are also preparing to release a flat water/ really fast Blackfish with a round bottom.
You are correct Luc. It is actually based on their rounded bottom flat water
prototype. Dave tamed the rails and bottom by few degrees to make it more
stable and than added the nose based on my specs.
Did you by any chance tried the new Flatfish? There were selling a proto on their page, it looks like a very nice board but definitely should be tippy compared to the traditional Blackfish.
-
The new board is at my home place and the first paddle in flat water is done.
Actually I'm not faster than with the Sidewinder, but also not slower.
For me, pivot turns works better with the Allstar and also when drafting the board ist more good-natured.
Paddling straight is easier with the Sidewinder. I think, this is the result of the different fin position.
All in all the Allstar is a nice board ;)
Also, would you say that the Allstar is not way better than the Sidewinder? The new Allstar has good reviews here in Spain but after many years with Starboard I have decided to choose another brand and model. Ordered a 2017 14X25 Sidewinder in white color, I hope I did the right choice :-)
-
The Sidewinder is a super board. Very light, very stable, accelerates fast and takes even the smallest waves.
The Allstar I chose, because I hope to be a little faster than with the Sidewinder.
The Sidewinder is now for sale, but should I am not faster with the Allstar and I still have the Sidewinder, then I will sell the Allstar and keep the Sidewinder.
-
This is the new unreleased Infinity Blackfish with some modification.
a little more rocker line than the Allstar, especially nose rocker. Nose kick is a combination of Ace, NSP Puma. Less nose volume than
the Allstar and straighter outline Nose to tail. The Tail is also wider.
Of course the bottom is also very different. Deep tapering concave from tail
to mid-section, much more rounded rails tucking into the bottom creating a
a rounder shape from the mid section to the nose. And a Larry Allison 4 fin setup for good measures.
25% cheaper than AllStar and it will fit me better than any production Allstar or blackfish for that matter.
Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't make sense to go and order ahead a production board, unless of course you buy used one on a fire sale at the end of the season and get it right away.
Otherwise I'll get a custom. Pay less, get more and still support American workforce. Good karma built in.
NICE!!!
It looks like a cross between the Blackfish ST and the Blackfish DW.
I think that they are also preparing to release a flat water/ really fast Blackfish with a round bottom.
You are correct Luc. It is actually based on their rounded bottom flat water
prototype. Dave tamed the rails and bottom by few degrees to make it more
stable and than added the nose based on my specs.
Did you by any chance tried the new Flatfish? There were selling a proto on their page, it looks like a very nice board but definitely should be tippy compared to the traditional Blackfish.
No, Dave was still covering the board after he got it out for testing. He has been killing it everywhere he participated lately using this board.
Has a lot of roll, but very good secondary stability.
-
It seems like the trend is making board shapes more and more similar to competitor boards - with a tweak here and there. One flat water specific model and one more all water when it comes to racing. Then you get the more general use boards that have more DW attributes - and the full on DW boards.
Like the change from the sharp deep vee to a more cutting bulbous nose. Definitely works when faced with start and draft train wakes and little bumps. Nevertheless the silent cut of a deep vee is super relaxing for fun paddles. Fanatic cut out its 2016 full deep vee Strike to a more common 2017 cutting bulbous shape. Makes sense. Just so interesting to listen to these promotions say one thing one year - and something completely different the next. ::)
https://youtu.be/60ecLJ2zjKM
https://youtu.be/4_MxAVL3cAQ
-
It seems like the trend is making board shapes more and more similar to competitor boards - with a tweak here and there. One flat water specific model and one more all water when it comes to racing. Then you get the more general use boards that have more DW attributes - and the full on DW boards.
...
I see competitor boards becoming more all-conditions. Which I find really cool. I see the same board being used from flat to downwinds. Yes, manufacturers do provide flat water models but they seem less used by racers, at least the races I see.
Team Naish certainly use the Jav Maliko for everything, flat to chop to downwind races. Arthur Arutkin told me he uses the Fanatic Falcon for everything. He’s doing well on it too: 3rd in pure flatwater distance race at the worlds.
Flatwater displacement boards are offered but seem less used by racers. At least to travel to races. It’s almost as if they are more for non-race river or lake use.
Re Fanatic: I much prefer the 2016 version Falcon. Shame they boof it up again. Those video’s never really show the board, the hull shape, the profile. They completely miss the point of making a video. They really lost a nice market position they had.
-
It seems like the trend is making board shapes more and more similar to competitor boards - with a tweak here and there. One flat water specific model and one more all water when it comes to racing. Then you get the more general use boards that have more DW attributes - and the full on DW boards.
...
I see competitor boards becoming more all-conditions. Which I find really cool. I see the same board being used from flat to downwinds. Yes, manufacturers do provide flat water models but they seem less used by racers, at least the races I see.
Team Naish certainly use the Jav Maliko for everything, flat to chop to downwind races. Arthur Arutkin told me he uses the Fanatic Falcon for everything. He’s doing well on it too: 3rd in pure flatwater distance race at the worlds.
Flatwater displacement boards are offered but seem less used by racers. At least to travel to races. It’s almost as if they are more for non-race river or lake use.
Re Fanatic: I much prefer the 2016 version Falcon. Shame they boof it up again. Those video’s never really show the board, the hull shape, the profile. They completely miss the point of making a video. They really lost a nice market position they had.
This is for you yugi. It seems that they chose to go pintail on their 14"
unlike recent trend with these kind of boards.
-
Very NSPish.
Fast but tricky for kick turns. Jake just makes it look easy. There's some Ace DNA in there. I was really impressed by the Ace upwind speed of Penelope Strickland-Armstrong in the worlds tech race. The wide front and narrow tail looked like it helped the board stay very much on the surface of the waves upwind. I believe it is the Ace theory that the rider stays a bit more "put", the bow raises on a wave up front and the pintail doesn't penalize speed as the stern gets sunk. All nice theories each time with Fanatic but they change too much and are a bit weird in some conditions.
I must be getting old, I trust things that evolve logically.
-
It seems like the trend is making board shapes more and more similar to competitor boards - with a tweak here and there. One flat water specific model and one more all water when it comes to racing. Then you get the more general use boards that have more DW attributes - and the full on DW boards.
...
I see competitor boards becoming more all-conditions. Which I find really cool. I see the same board being used from flat to downwinds. Yes, manufacturers do provide flat water models but they seem less used by racers, at least the races I see.
Team Naish certainly use the Jav Maliko for everything, flat to chop to downwind races. Arthur Arutkin told me he uses the Fanatic Falcon for everything. He’s doing well on it too: 3rd in pure flatwater distance race at the worlds.
Flatwater displacement boards are offered but seem less used by racers. At least to travel to races. It’s almost as if they are more for non-race river or lake use.
Re Fanatic: I much prefer the 2016 version Falcon. Shame they boof it up again. Those video’s never really show the board, the hull shape, the profile. They completely miss the point of making a video. They really lost a nice market position they had.
I agree with this. The market for flatwater specific boards must be very small now and I'm not getting one next year as they are a nightmare to sell on. People generally like the all-water option..... even if they don't use it on all-waters !
-
When top athletes have to travel to a race, taking two boards may not be the easiest thing in the world. Since such competitors can still excel on flat water using an all-water board, all the more power to them.
For the rest of us mere mortals, I find that at lower speeds between 7.5 and 8.5 km/h, a flat water specific board glides beautifully, and CLEARLY requires a lot less effort.
With this in mind, I sold my 2016 14x23 Sprint - a model that hadn't changed much in 3 or 4 years. My new one will be a completely redesigned bow for the 2017 14x21.5, this time really designed for flat water. It will make a beautiful companion for any all-water board.
-
I agree with photofr: flatwater boards are definitely faster for most people in anything like flat water conditions. I think most people are buying all waters boards not because they are faster for most racing they will do, but because they are more stable for a given width. This makes them quite pleasant to paddle even if they aren't the fastest. Plus, International elite paddlers can't go taking a quiver of boards with them so take an all-rounder as a safe option, and weekend warriors tend to copy them.
Has anyone tried the 2017 Fanatic flat water board? The last one was too extreme a FW board, but the new one looks like a very interesting compromise that might suit lots of people who don't often go out in open ocean/DW conditions. It looks like it could cope with quite a wide range of conditions but still be fast in flat water.
-
^ ”Le monde a l'envers!"
The guy who lives in one of the windiest, waviest, highest tides and craziest currents parts of the world chooses a pure-glass flatwater board. The guy who lives on a lake, me, picks a downwind board and is happy with that as a quiver of one and riding it in glass conditions.
[edit to add]
And the guy in the windiest, and perhaps choppiest, place yearns for a cutting bow flatwater board!
What’s up with that!!!???
-
While we tease and joke about the silly grade school marketing of the brand - the AS is actually an incredible design compared to older versions pre-2016.
Buying a 24.5 on the spot is making a pretty strong statement considering you just bought the SW25 recently. As a beginner 6.3 and 202 - and a previous Sprint 23 owner - the 24.5AS must have been a really nice board for you.
It seems that 24.5 may become the new 27 race width for many possibly. I know for me - the 23 is perfect though. Not too tippy and not too slow. Just right in fact. Perfecto! :)
I still hadn't had the chance to try the new one. I still have a 2014 26 width 14 footer which (apart from starboards god awful durability that year) is a really quick board and great in all conditions.
I am waiting for one of the big brands to jump on something like the Allison ventral fin concept - if only as a means of marketing to help rejuvenate what will be becoming soon, diminishing returns in board design.
You gotta try one when you can. And if need be - just cut in a few more fin slots and plop in some more fins.
I'm seeing more people say that but they never do more than one test run and have no margins of error.
Qoute from Eagle:
"I am waiting for one of the big brands to jump on something like the Allison ventral fin concept - if only as a means of marketing to help rejuvenate what will be becoming soon, diminishing returns in board design."
You are right my friend. In the pic below Infinity had just posted the 2017 Cat. Allison Probox Finsystems with Allison Ventral are Standard.
I think that has no Margine of error (-:
-
While we tease and joke about the silly grade school marketing of the brand - the AS is actually an incredible design compared to older versions pre-2016.
Buying a 24.5 on the spot is making a pretty strong statement considering you just bought the SW25 recently. As a beginner 6.3 and 202 - and a previous Sprint 23 owner - the 24.5AS must have been a really nice board for you.
It seems that 24.5 may become the new 27 race width for many possibly. I know for me - the 23 is perfect though. Not too tippy and not too slow. Just right in fact. Perfecto! :)
I still hadn't had the chance to try the new one. I still have a 2014 26 width 14 footer which (apart from starboards god awful durability that year) is a really quick board and great in all conditions.
I am waiting for one of the big brands to jump on something like the Allison ventral fin concept - if only as a means of marketing to help rejuvenate what will be becoming soon, diminishing returns in board design.
You gotta try one when you can. And if need be - just cut in a few more fin slots and plop in some more fins.
I'm seeing more people say that but they never do more than one test run and have no margins of error.
Qoute from Eagle:
"I am waiting for one of the big brands to jump on something like the Allison ventral fin concept - if only as a means of marketing to help rejuvenate what will be becoming soon, diminishing returns in board design."
You are right my friend. In the pic below Infinity had just posted the 2017 Cat. Allison Probox Finsystems with Allison Ventral are Standard.
I think that has no Margine of error (-:
That was my statement, not Eagle's. Manufacturers may well jump on it. They may equally jump on it and put the fins in the wrong place. Either way, marketing has more pull than performance at the end of the day and I don't trust manufacturers that produce no data.
-
Larry - for me and my wife - boards like the AS23 are plenty stable enough with the OEM. We are not in the market for a quad fin set-up. And in fact we purposefully use a smaller SIC 7.0 for more challenge and to provide more maneuverability angling across waves to minimize broaching.
Based on our PMs - you seem not to send out any demo fins for people to try. That would be the best option for me if possible. But you did give me very good pricing on a GT. What pricing can you give me for your new carbon Aercor? It does need to fit into my 2016 All Star fin slot though. Thanks.
edit - yugi - that Ace is crazy fast upwind. The boof does not pearl and the pintail has like zero drag.
-
The problem with the AS is the big bulbous nose. Was out yesterday in outflow winds about 15 kts and the 23 motored upwind. Needed to keep the nose angled into the wind though - but was ok. Problem was DW the nose was quite hard to angle - as the wind pushes hard on all the windage.
You must make a concerted effort to constantly correct and aim left if you want to go left. Otherwise you just get blown straight DW. Handling in the bumps was fine though but not nearly as good as the Bullet or M-14. Ok for small stuff - but not my choice for over 15 kts. And that is with the reduced volume of 2016 - and in the low profile 23. So something to be aware of - the increased volume adds float - but also adds windage which is a problem DW or going 90 to the wind. Get a Bullet or M-14 for that for sure. ;)
-
Or a Vapor, or a Maliko, or a Falcon, or a Rail, or a Sidewinder...etc... lots of ways of avoiding the "fat lip failings" :)
Plus, the thin-lipped boards tend to surf better.
It's all about choices I guess, and getting the right tool for the job.
-
Yep - just goes to confirm again that no board can do everything at the top of its game. Every board has its own specific compromises.
-
My 2015 Starby Race 🏁 and I have become friends in some chop. Cross wind not so much. Down breeze challenging. Still fast in glass and surface chop.
Not liking the Bluefin except racing in junk.
This has become my favorite section as I have learned a great deal.
My next one will be my last - hahahaha! Riiight dude!
-
Yep - just goes to confirm again that no board can do everything at the top of its game. Every board has its own specific compromises.
Yes... and for this I have three boards (ok, actually four, but one is for sale) :-)
Allstar for training and race.
Bullet for vacation at the sea or windy days on lakes or same boat waves at the danube river.
Starboard Stream for whitewater.
So I hope I don't need another board for the next months :D