Author Topic: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout  (Read 28494 times)

Eagle

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2016, 02:03:50 PM »
Personally we like no flex on flat -> and some flex in bumps.  The flex adds a more forgiving feel when it gets steep and deep -> whereas no flex gives a more instant response to paddle input.  Both have their pros and cons.

Very similar to ski and SB reverse camber - relating to race vs recreational.  We have race models with stiff flex - and there is absolutely no way you could zipper a bump run on a GS vs a soft flexing bump set-up.  Until you try firsthand -> most would never know the difference.  Now the bump ski with low torsional rigidity is a complete sloppy wet noodle on a high speed GS cranking turn in comparison.

Both the FX and 2016 Allstar seem like very good modern carbon boards.
Fast is FUN!   8)
Dominator - Touring Pintail - Bullet V2 - M14 - AS23

Area 10

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 3901
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2016, 02:07:07 PM »
Burchas - I'm surprised you say the build of your custom FX isn't great. Is it a hand-built Maui board? I always thought that Raaphorst and colleagues would build a more durable board than Cobra, assuming the buyer hadn't asked for a super-light construction or something. Is this not so?

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2016, 02:14:42 PM »
I don't think there is any anti-Starboard bias here. This brand tends to explain more in their marketing material than many other brands, and tend to be highly innovative, so it is natural that their claims and innovations will be discussed more than most other brands. The 2016 All Star is a far more revolutionary design than the SIC FX. So there's more to talk about, both good (potentially) and bad (potentially).

I rather liked the 2015 All Star for the choppy stuff I paddle in. So if Starboard have improved it still further for 2016, and improved stability via the novel bottom channels etc, then I'm happy expect that this All Star is as good as the review suggests. The boards are probably aimed at slightly different markets - the FX aimed more towards the dedicated racer and the All Star towards someone looking for a flattering all-waters quiver-of-one. But then again, given the cost of either of these boards, neither is likely to be an impulse buy by a casual paddler.

It just seemed to heading in that direction, but everyone is entitled to their opinion regardless. I'm not completely sold on the flex comments or mentions of construction, but can't write off what they are saying either. I prefer the looks of boards like the SIC and Vapor to the Allstar,  and after seeing Bark and SIC boards in the flesh, wouldn't mind owning either one.  Especially if they came in slightly wider widths and different construction options. Looking forward to your review of the Vapor.

burchas

  • Mill Rock
  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1860
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2016, 03:39:21 PM »
Burchas - I'm surprised you say the build of your custom FX isn't great. Is it a hand-built Maui board? I always thought that Raaphorst and colleagues would build a more durable board than Cobra, assuming the buyer hadn't asked for a super-light construction or something. Is this not so?

A10, i'm not an expert on construction quality, but my board is delicate, however, my case is a very
unique as this is a 2 piece board (hence the flex), so I can't even imagine what other factors are going into the construction.

That said, if not for Mark, my 2 piece project would not exist, I've asked about a dozen board manufactures if they can build it, they all laughed me off the phone, but Mark was like "Here in Maui, we can build you anything you want" and he did, and I'm a happy camper!
- M15 15x27x4.5 https://bit.ly/2WmuEpt
- Ocean Ripple 16x25 @ 251L
- SIC Standamaran (S-16) - https://goo.gl/7myGAo
- Wide Tail 10x31x4 @ 149L
- SIC FX 12.6 2X - https://goo.gl/GOkSHT
- Red 2017 Elite 14x25
- ZRE Lightning 75
- Kenalu Mana 82
- Kialoa Hulu 87
- QuickBlade Trifecta 86

Luc Benac

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1690
  • Super Natural British Columbia
    • View Profile
    • When not paddling...
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2016, 05:06:33 PM »
The shape is spot on for pretty much every condition, so I'm sure there are a lot of really big paddlers that would love to give the Vapor a go.

If it came CAD $1,000 less and possibly in a slightly stronger/heavier construction I would be one of them. I could perfectly live with a 28/29 lbs board but with a stronger finish and lower price. It would be difficult for me to go for a CAD $3,700 board period but even less so if the finish risk to be toasted after less than a season. A 26" Vapor and a 28" Downwinder would seat nicely in my garage and even nicer on my car.


Flat#Naish Javelin LE 14' x 26" 250L - Andaman 500
DW#Naish Maliko 14' x 26" 264L - Salish 460
Touring#Naish Sunova Allwater 14'x27" 319L - Salish 500
Wave#Nalu 11'4" x 30" 180L - Mana 82

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2016, 06:05:04 PM »
The shape is spot on for pretty much every condition, so I'm sure there are a lot of really big paddlers that would love to give the Vapor a go.

If it came CAD $1,000 less and possibly in a slightly stronger/heavier construction I would be one of them. I could perfectly live with a 28/29 lbs board but with a stronger finish and lower price. It would be difficult for me to go for a CAD $3,700 board period but even less so if the finish risk to be toasted after less than a season. A 26" Vapor and a 28" Downwinder would seat nicely in my garage and even nicer on my car.

You should convince your wife that the 26" vapor is the board she really needs. :)The SIC might be  more durable than the Vapor with their "Innegra" reinforcements in strategic places on the board. I would be surprised if the local Bark dealer here got in a Vapor while still sitting on Downwinders from last year, but I would love to try one. Price wise I was leaning towards the Hybrid construction Starboard AllStar, and it weighs around 29-30 pounds for the 27" wide version. I'm also wondering about the NSP-DC offerings. I have heard the new elements construction is pretty heavy, so their 14 X 29 board would probably be very similar in weight and intended use to what I already have. I really liked the look of their coco carbon version from a couple years back and it weighed around 29 pounds. I can live with that no problem after paddling 34-36 pound boards.

Luc Benac

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1690
  • Super Natural British Columbia
    • View Profile
    • When not paddling...
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2016, 06:44:58 PM »
You should convince your wife that the 26" vapor is the board she really needs. :)The SIC might be  more durable than the Vapor with their "Innegra" reinforcements in strategic places on the board. I would be surprised if the local Bark dealer here got in a Vapor while still sitting on Downwinders from last year, but I would love to try one. Price wise I was leaning towards the Hybrid construction Starboard AllStar, and it weighs around 29-30 pounds for the 27" wide version. I'm also wondering about the NSP-DC offerings. I have heard the new elements construction is pretty heavy, so their 14 X 29 board would probably be very similar in weight and intended use to what I already have. I really liked the look of their coco carbon version from a couple years back and it weighed around 29 pounds. I can live with that no problem after paddling 34-36 pound boards.

That will not work this time.... :-)  She is pretty set on keeping her JP Australia Sportster 14x28 - I wish I could have purchased the Carbon version at the time. I have to say that on flattish water, it is a great design and a 14x27~26 at 28 lbs would have been also the perfect board for me. I took it some time ago on my local lake speed run and after using my lighter boards I could definitely feel the weight. I actually look in Canada for a carbon version and the prices are also completely silly. I agree that the Starboard Carbon Glass/Hybrid construction is a great value. I would also like to see first hand the Jimmy Lewis sandwich signature construction. It seems to garner a lot of praise.
Flat#Naish Javelin LE 14' x 26" 250L - Andaman 500
DW#Naish Maliko 14' x 26" 264L - Salish 460
Touring#Naish Sunova Allwater 14'x27" 319L - Salish 500
Wave#Nalu 11'4" x 30" 180L - Mana 82

Rideordie

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2016, 08:12:15 PM »
Interesting thread here.  I don't like a flexy board either and had the same thoughts about that. First I have heard about the Starboard construction being "superior".  Usually I hear the opposite.  I also found it interesting that this board is described as a 26.  In Mark's vids he calls it 25 and 5/8ths for the 12 6 version. I am wondering if this was a pre-production board in the test and if the production board will be narrower with more volume, as we have seen with the 14 boards.  ???   Anyway, sounds like they really liked both boards.  My money is already down and waiting for the SIC FX 14.  I will keep the $800 difference thank you.     
Infinity Blackfish Custom 14 x 26.75 (4 fins)
Naish Glide 14 (v2)
SIC X-14 SCC  
KeNalu Konihi 95 xTuf(s)
KeNalu Mana 90 100 Flex

SUPflorida

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2016, 04:02:05 AM »
Robon...my point wasn't Allstar bashing at all...can't argue with a board that performs...the source of that performance is almost certainly the synergy of outline/rocker/ bottom contours/rail shape etc....not flex....sounds like flex may have been a by product of wanting minimum weight and certain construction material/techniques.
The easiest way to fix any precieved weakness is to say you designed that way on purpose....and let the marketing guys run with it. It's a great looking board, it performs extremely well in multiple reviews. If it goes upwind as well as they say it does...could be the ticket for those of us that spend as much time or more going upwind than down. Just don't tell me "it's because of the flex....as said above it may be faster than it is if it didn't flex as much...maybe it speaks to the guys that grew up in the "bounce" generation?...you know the groms that hop up and down on their potato chips trying to drop into a wave.

Chilly

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2016, 05:59:50 AM »
I believe the flex is intentional just like the flex that is intentionally built into different paddle shafts. I’ve paddled both the hybrid carbon and the full carbon. The flex in the full carbon is noticeable but nothing at all like an inflatable and there's no vibration like you get with a planning surf style board. I think it just helps absorb the chop when paddling upwind which I can see it translating into speed. An analogy will be driving a car with no suspension. The review is spot on with my experience with the new 2016 Allstar. I only question the weight of 22.5 lb being a little on the light side from the board I paddled (25 lb full carbon).
NSP 2016 12'6 Surf Race Pro

yugi

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2016, 07:59:29 AM »
My BS meter starts going off when this “flex”’issue comes into play…while anything is possible…if flex was such a positive attribute…inflatables would walk away from hard boards ….especially upwind…which I keep reading is inflatables Achilles heel”


Inflatables will always suck in up or side wind coz of their huge height above the waterline. So any advantage they gain in another department is always going to be nil.

I found the perspective on flex working for you interesting. How much do you want to bet these guys are kiteboarders? Kiteboarders know what a stiff board works like upwind (read : suck).

Rideordie

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2016, 08:06:05 AM »
For me, the jury is still out until someone can assure me that the SIC board tested matches Mark's description.  Did anyone check the size and volume marked on the bottom of the board?  Supposed to be 25 and 5/8ths and 265 advertised volume.  Advertised weight is listed at 22 pounds, but the test lists it at 24 lbs with fin and tape.  I suspect that the board tested was a pre-production board.

Infinity Blackfish Custom 14 x 26.75 (4 fins)
Naish Glide 14 (v2)
SIC X-14 SCC  
KeNalu Konihi 95 xTuf(s)
KeNalu Mana 90 100 Flex

robon

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2016, 08:28:13 AM »
Robon...my point wasn't Allstar bashing at all...can't argue with a board that performs...the source of that performance is almost certainly the synergy of outline/rocker/ bottom contours/rail shape etc....not flex....sounds like flex may have been a by product of wanting minimum weight and certain construction material/techniques.
The easiest way to fix any precieved weakness is to say you designed that way on purpose....and let the marketing guys run with it. It's a great looking board, it performs extremely well in multiple reviews. If it goes upwind as well as they say it does...could be the ticket for those of us that spend as much time or more going upwind than down. Just don't tell me "it's because of the flex....as said above it may be faster than it is if it didn't flex as much...maybe it speaks to the guys that grew up in the "bounce" generation?...you know the groms that hop up and down on their potato chips trying to drop into a wave.

Considering multiple people have chimed in now and said that they prefer some flex in the bumps, I'm not so sure it's a weakness in the design at all. Could be accidental in the design process, but if people think some flex helps, then maybe it actually does. Even a FX owner has stated he likes some flex over a really stiff design. The flex in the review seems a bit overstated and  I agree that the performance can be attributed to multiple factors in the hull design, but even though I'm not convinced about the flex comments either, I'm not discounted it entirely. Especially when people have jumped in and have said a bit of flex can be a good thing. I had a starboard Race in the AST construction from a few years back and I got very noticeable board shudder when paddling into big upwind swells. That wasn't good flex. This seems different. Won't know until I try.

burchas

  • Mill Rock
  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1860
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2016, 09:21:36 AM »
Robon, I never tried to measure if the flex actually helps performance wise as I never tried
to measure it against a stiff board, however, I can say that for me, the flex just makes the ride so
much better. Remind me the difference in the ride on my road bike when I replaced seat to a model
with a shock absorbing carbon rails, the ride was so much better on the crappy road we have here.

I spend hours a month going upwind and with the FX it actually became a fun activity
for me when it's bumpy. Same goes for heavy side chop and sharp boat wakes that I get a lot.
Almost never have really flat water conditions, so it a moot point for me.

Rideordie, You were right about the volume 265, but the width for the production supposed to be
25.50. See attached image from the catalog. So I'm not sure what's with the 26" on the review.
- M15 15x27x4.5 https://bit.ly/2WmuEpt
- Ocean Ripple 16x25 @ 251L
- SIC Standamaran (S-16) - https://goo.gl/7myGAo
- Wide Tail 10x31x4 @ 149L
- SIC FX 12.6 2X - https://goo.gl/GOkSHT
- Red 2017 Elite 14x25
- ZRE Lightning 75
- Kenalu Mana 82
- Kialoa Hulu 87
- QuickBlade Trifecta 86

Eagle

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 SIC FX 12'6 X 26 VS Starboard All Star 12'6 X 25 Shootout
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2016, 10:21:42 AM »
Even with lightweight riders - some boards do flex nicely.

1   Bullet 17.4 DCC demo - yes front flexes in waves
2   Bullet 14V2 SCC - no noticeable flex and feels quite stiff
3   JL M-14 SIB - yes front flexes in waves
4   SB Touring Carbon - zero flex very stiff
5   Dominator Pro-Elite - yes center flexes quite easy

For DB planing we prefer no flex - for more instant power.
For DW planing we prefer some flex - for more forgiveness.
SB seems to be promoting a center flex rebound concept.

JR talks about "bounce" at 4:50 in this vid.
Which we do all the time to get our boards to plane.
All about timing and power -> and works a charm.   ;)

Fast is FUN!   8)
Dominator - Touring Pintail - Bullet V2 - M14 - AS23