Allstar 27 and 28 differences

[coldsup]

Hi folks, I am a tad puzzled by the volumes and tail width measurements of the new 2016 Allstar 27 and 28.

The Starby website says the volume of the 27 wide is 324 and the volume of the 28 309. It also says the tail width if the 27 is a whopping 17.2 but on the wider 28 wide version it is 15.9.

Are these mistakes or right? If they are right are we talking about slightly different designs in the new Allstar?

Anyone know for sure. Thanks

[Chilly]

I think they are right. My understanding is that the 28 is a slightly different designed more for downwind. The standing area is more sunken with drain holes, so that and the narrower tail could be the reason for less volume. 

[coldsup]

I see....I think I heard or read that somewhere else but didn't take much notice because there's nothin to say that on their website. How useless is that! Do folk who actually ride their boards write the stuff.

[will-go]

thread revival ... can anyone weigh in regarding performance differences between the 2016 allstar 27 vs 28?  Searched, but didn't see much.

[rfhestdalen]

I'm 6'7" 215, and recently purchased a carbon 28" 2016 Allstar. This board replaced my 2013 27.5" Allstar carbon.  I was looking for a more all-around type board with a bit more DW abilities.  (I did not try the 27", but wished I had)

Compared to the 2013, the 28" has much much greater stability but noticeably a slower board on the flats.  It doesn't accelerate nearly as fast and seems to be a lot heavier than the 2013 in the water, but it isn't.  Even my wife, who is a recreational paddler at best, thinks its slow as our old yellow Lab and prefers our starboard Blend as it seems to be faster for her. I'm not sure how the new 27" with more vol and slightly heavier than the 28" could be that much faster in non-DW conditions?
I haven't done enough DWers to give a good a assessment, but initially it is promising.  Its amazing how you can sink the front of the board in the water and it will not pearl, something my 2013 would always seem to do.  Also the increased stability is a huge plus in windy conditions given my size and inexperience.

I have read some threads stating that one can not expect a fast board with a 27" or great width.  But my 2013 27.5" board seemed a lot faster.  Maybe the process of making the board more all-around, slows the board in the flats.  Although I must say, I was expecting a little more flat water performance out of a board that has 3 years of better technology and costs 4K. 

Insight of more experienced paddlers would be appreciated. 

[Eagle]

Compared to the 2013, the 28" has much much greater stability but noticeably a slower board on the flats.  It doesn't accelerate nearly as fast and seems to be a lot heavier than the 2013 in the water, but it isn't.  Even my wife, who is a recreational paddler at best, thinks its slow as our old yellow Lab and prefers our starboard Blend as it seems to be faster for her ..... Its amazing how you can sink the front of the board in the water and it will not pearl, something my 2013 would always seem to do.  Also the increased stability is a huge plus in windy conditions given my size and inexperience ..... Maybe the process of making the board more all-around, slows the board in the flats.  Although I must say, I was expecting a little more flat water performance out of a board that has 3 years of better technology and costs 4K.

Hey rfh - that is our exact feeling as well about the 28 CS.  I posted about the 28 a few times before.

That board is eminently stable for a 28 - and did feel quite slow upwind for us as well.  The pro is that it glided fine with the wind behind - so for DB and DW it should be a good platform for you to learn on.  With the big boof the 2016 will be hard to pearl if not impossible on the 28.  The 28 is a DW specific version with the drain holes.  The board should work well for your size and experience level.  And yes designing the board for DW did make the board slower in the flats.  The extra width at the nose increased the stability but the consequence was that is also increased the drag a lot.  Width in the nose at waterline increases drag a lot - and that is what you and your wife are feeling.  It will not pearl though - so you get that in return.

The 2013 was definitely a faster board by far - so you are not imagining that at all.  But for DB and DW you are on the right board.   

[Area 10]

You can't have everything in one board. Many of the things that make a board easy downwind make it slow in flat water. The 28 All Star is quite a downwind-specific design of the boof-nose variety (there are various solutions as to how to make a board work downwind, and this is one of them). They probably should have called it something different from an All Star, to avoid confusion, because most people who buy an All Star basically want a flat water board with some added chop and downwind ability, not a downwind-specific board.

[rfhestdalen]

thanks for the feedback (Eagle and Area 10).  Could you tell me how the Allstar 28" compares in flat water to say a SIC V2, or Bullet V1?  And do you have experience with the SIC FX pro 14'?  (from other sites, they are compared the FX pro and the allstar 25' to be fairly equivalent in flat water conditions)
From what you guys are saying, the 28" is very much a DW board, (not the all-rounder that the allstar is being advertized as) but does it have better flat water performance than DW specific boards?  thanks.

[Eagle]

Well the Bullet 14V2 is a single concave svelte board with a low surf nose vs a big wide boof with a cutting spoon nose.  So in theory the AS28 should be a touch faster on flat - but in actuality may not be because of its wide nose at waterline and increased rocker.  As well the triple concaves may cause additional drag because wetted surface area is increased.

The Bullet 14 has a high surf nose and a double concave - and is better in bigger DW waves vs the 14V2.  So would say that the AS28 flat water performance might be about the same as the Bullet 14 -> and slower than the 14V2.  Regarding the FX - we have no firsthand experience - so cannot comment about that board other than to speculate.

What you got in the AS28 was a less all-around type board with a lot more DW abilities.  Whereas the AS27 would be more all-around with a bit more DW abilities vs your 2013.  So it sounds like what you were looking for would be closer to the 27 -> not 28.  Did not the retailer explain this to you before you purchased the board?

[mr_proper]

The Bullet V1 is slow on flat water. You have to spend a lot of effort to get speed.
It is heavy and has much rocker and with 92kg I have to stay 10 cm in front of the handle to bring the tail out of water. Then it become a little bit faster. I think it is min. 1km/h slower than the 14x25 Sidewinder.
But with wind and small waves it is a lot of fun.
The V2 is faster.

[Area 10]

I have both Bullets, but I don't have an AS 14x28 so can't compare directly. I doubt if there is a great deal of difference between any of them in flat water. I was a bit disappointed that the Bullet V2 wasn't faster in flat water. It is a bit faster than the V1, but not enough that you'd want to race it in flat water. Most DW-specific boards will go a reasonable speed in flat water if you really put the power down - but you *really* have to put the power down, and most people won't be able to do that for long.

If you want respectable flat water speed as well as some downwind capability then the Starboard Ace (14x25), Mistral Equinox (14x24.6) and Jimmy Lewis Sidewinder (14x25 or 14x23) are worth a try. In substantial part, however, they are faster in flat water because they are a lot narrower than the Bullets or the AS 28. So they are also a lot tippier, and WAY more technical downwind (the Sidewinder is quite a bit easier than the others, so is a pretty good deal).

The Bark Vapor 14x26 is more stable than any of those three, and is a bit faster in flat water than the Bullets. But it is slower than the Mistral, Sidewinder and Ace in pure flat water. Nice to paddle, though, nevertheless.

There are no easy solutions. You have to pick a board that matches your priorities. It's no good choosing a DW board if you paddle flat water 80-90% of the time, just as it is hopeless to choose a flat water board if you are mainly interested in downwinding. You have to make conscious choices and be aware that you are. The brands don't help, really, by tending to overstate the case of their boards in terms of all-round ability.

Most DW-specific boards are quite nice to paddle in flat water. They just aren't fast when they do it. So they make reasonable tourers but lousy flat water racers.

I've not tried a SIC FX yet. I'm expecting that it is a board that is 75% flat water and 25% downwind. Like the other narrow hybrid design boards, I'd expect it to be potentially fast downwind, but only if you have the skills to use it. Boards like the Ace are really quite astonishingly fast downwind in small stuff. But unless you are an elite paddler, you are going to fall quite a bit, and after 30-45 mins or so of intense downwinding your legs are probably going to be done. Which is an issue if your course takes 1 hr or more... I'm expecting the FX to be similar(ish) overall, but  probably more forgiving than the Ace or Equinox, and maybe a little faster in flat water than them (and slower for downbreezing).

It's not that complicated, really. Here's an idiot's guide:

Things that make boards fast in flat water:

Pointy (ie. narrow) nose
Narrow middle
Cutting bow (like a Bark Dominator for instance, or a reverse bow design kike you see on ships).
Flat rocker.

Things that make a board easy to use downwind:

Wide nose (to stop pearling)
Wide middle (for stability)
Planing bow (like a surfboard, or a prone paddleboard)
Plenty of rocker.

So, you can usually pretty much look at a board and know what it will be like just by looking at these things. (There are many other features to consider also, like rail shape and convex/concave bottoms etc but they get a bit more technical to understand.) And if you look at these lists you can easily see why a really great downwind board can't also be fast in flat water, and vice-versa. Horses for courses.

[zachhandler]

Amazing how bad the SB website is on this. No mention of any of the specific design features, the drainage holes, etc. the pics are all of what looks like tve 25" model.

[Area 10]

If you see drainage holes in a board it means "flat water, ripples and downbreezing only, no surf or downwinding please unless elite level".

Drain holes usually mean dugout. Dugouts fill with water and drain slowly. During this time the board can be effectively up to double the weight and has an unstable load on board. Not good. The edges of dugouts also hurt when they hit your shins, and make it awkward to get back on (or in) a board. So if you are going to be using a dugout in lively conditions, you had better be good.

I'm not sure why someone would build a board quite specifically aimed at downwinding for the ordinary Joe or Joanna, and use a dugout. But hey, that's just my opinion...

I think maybe the 14x28 AS is intended for pretty heavy riders, maybe? I think I saw some footage of PT Woody downwinding one and it looked like it had a lot of volume (but he is quite light)-???

[Eagle]

The 28 has about the same height little ridge on the deck like the other widths.  I posted photos before of that board and the 25 and 23.  The drain holes seem like overkill.  On the 23 and 25 - the drain holes are not needed because once you step back for DB waves - any small amount of water in the standing area drains out the back.  If however you stay right forward - a small amount will accumulate.  Maybe a cup or so.