Toothpick, ultra narrow tippy race boards. What would you want to know ?

[ukgm]

Yes quite. But it’s people like you who are responsible for making yourselves obsolete. So don’t expect any sympathy from me - you made (and are making) your own bed.

Well I wasn’t after sympathy. It’s merely an observation. Besides, in my experience, regulation (at the right point, granted), is essential. Without that, the initial freedom left unchecked will destroy a sport due to the increasing imbalances it creates.

1) The sport is re-skilling people like you right out of it.
2) But greater diversity of equipment could avoid this.
3) For some reason you are happy with this.
4) Maybe you are happy having an excuse as to why you aren’t winning (when you aren’t)

1) Someone will always get reskilled out of a newly developing sport. Big guys like me aren’t the only demographic getting hammered by the current board limits.

2) I don’t disagree.

3) I’m happier being able to race against my friends and I’ve explained before several times why I’m not personally banner waving for an unlimited class. That’s been asked and answered and you know this. Ultimately, I’m a cyclist first and a paddler second hence my more relaxed view of things as far as SUP goes. I have to really as I only paddle 2-3 times a week (it’s all I can fit in around my cycling so to be honest, I should be paddling more as a priority long before worrying about weighing 10kg more than my adversaries). As you’ll see on my Facebook page, I spread myself too thin with compromises all round but I love a variety of sports.

4) You’re reaching. I’m not sure why I need to be finding an excuse for anything. Either way, I have several fronts I need to improve on as a paddler and there are plenty of others for me other than mere mass. On a related theme, I have different problems to overcome with my surf skiing not related to my size to be competitive there next year and I can use equipment there that isn’t hamstrung by my size.

[ukgm]

Speed costs money mate, in any sport.

Indeed.

(or just wait for a 21.5 bargain 6 months from now when team paddlers are getting frustrated they still can't shift their old gear to allow them to have the new stuff -standard team ambassador deal clause).

Are team paddlers/ambassadors normally bound to upgrade their gear every year? Can't they stick with their gear for one more year if, say, they don't like the changes?

I can’t speak for everyone but at a domestic level, it seems to a requirement to try to do so but not everyone does so. Some teams seem to be more relaxed than others. Mind you, if you’re not going to use the latest equipment from a brand, I’m not sure I can the point of being on the team (either from theirs or the athletes point of view).

[ukgm]

For what it's worth, I'm splitting my time between SUp and surfski next year so will unlikely see enough time on a board that narrow to justify it so I'm likely to be going for something like the 23.5 Allstar (for the exact reason you gave in your post) and whatever I'm given to test.

As noted the original triple concave All Star 23 is somewhat sleek for a cutting boof design.  It easily pearls if you are not constantly trimming it in steep wave action.  But interestingly the current 22.5 may be pretty close in size and handling.  Whereas the current 23.5 and 24.5 are considerably larger bulkier and have a lot more float comparably.

Personally my preference is always a wider tail option since my balance is pretty crappy on narrow boards.  So losing an inch stability at the tail width would be quite a bit for me on the 22.5 model.  The tail width on the current dropped deck Sprint 23 is a nice fat 15.8".  So even better.  Notice the Sprint 21.5 tail width is now the same as my old AS23 -> at 14.8" wide.  ukgm my suggestion would still be the Sprint 23 -> unless you mostly expect to race in ocean slop and chop.  Then would go for the AS 23.5 just to handle waves better.  The Sprint 21.5 nose spears too mch for me in steep waves.  So is very hard to keep speed up and consistent unless a top elite.  My suspicion is the Sprint 23 would be optimal for your type of racing. 

2016
23" - 8.7" Thick - 14.8" Tail - 264L - 50-80kgs

2019
22.5" - 8.7" Thick - 13.8" Tail - 272L - 40-75kgs

2019
23.5" - 10.2" Thick - 14.4" Tail - 327L - 50-85kgs

I agree Eagle. If one comes up, that would be my first choice.

As a brief tangent, looking at the footage of Steinfath at the recent euro champs, he looks like he’s still on a stock 24 width board.

[ukgm]

Fiona Wylde kept an older version of her Allstar for several years. I'm assuming because she preferred that board as she was doing well enough to have the choice.

In the UK, ex domestic team Starboard stalwart (and longstanding 11 cities competitor) Crispin Jones was using his cut down K15 when he was formally on their team (and still continues to do so now).

[Eagle]

I agree Eagle. If one comes up, that would be my first choice.

As a brief tangent, looking at the footage of Steinfath at the recent euro champs, he looks like he’s still on a stock 24 width board.

At 24 wide it would be very hard for Steinfath to even keep close to the Hasulyo Bros in 11 Cities if he ever tried.  That spear 21.5 Sprint is so efficient comparably as you know.  A tubby 24 Maliko like that simply would be too sluggish and draggy to keep close.  Even in a draft train.

But did like the addition of the Time Trials.  Allowed the stronger paddler behind a chance to catch up and pass like in the Women's Div.  The draft trains have always helped equalize the weaker paddlers.  All Yuka had to do was keep pace with Seychelle.  But Seychelle simply is a powerhouse for endurance.  Personally do not like draft trains of any sort.  Always have preferred hard core give it all you got Time Trials. 

[mr_proper]

2016
23" - 8.7" Thick - 14.8" Tail - 264L - 50-80kgs

2019
22.5" - 8.7" Thick - 13.8" Tail - 272L - 40-75kgs

2019
23.5" - 10.2" Thick - 14.4" Tail - 327L - 50-85kgs

I think the volume of the narrow boards is deceptive.
How should this volume help heavy paddlers when this is mostly above the water surface?
In troubled conditions ok, but in flat water?
If that would work, then I could stick some air balloons on the front and back of the board and would also have a lot of volume.
Or have I thought incorrectly about that?

[ukgm]

The draft trains have always helped equalize the weaker paddlers.  All Yuka had to do was keep pace with Seychelle.  But Seychelle simply is a powerhouse for endurance.  Personally do not like draft trains of any sort.  Always have preferred hard core give it all you got Time Trials. 

I agree. It's exactly for this reason why in cycling too I don't do bunch racing anymore and stick to time trials and i prefer the quieter SUP races too for the same reason. There is an argument to be made that tactical nous is (or should be considered) part of the SUP game but personally, the inclusion of TT's in the 11 cities was intended to replicate the tour de France approach and it should be applauded. When you look at the results of those particular stages, it gives a bit of insight into who the really strong paddlers are.

[Eagle]

Personally proper am not much concerned by volume as a lightweight rider about the size of Kai.  Paddled a huge volume Bullet 17.4 and loved it.  Also loved that huge 17'11 One.  Basically just determine at the time when hopping on a board if I like it or not.  Never thought about how it should help a heavier rider.  Maybe some designer like Robert can tell you.

[Eagle]

The draft trains have always helped equalize the weaker paddlers.  All Yuka had to do was keep pace with Seychelle.  But Seychelle simply is a powerhouse for endurance.  Personally do not like draft trains of any sort.  Always have preferred hard core give it all you got Time Trials. 

I agree. It's exactly for this reason why in cycling too I don't do bunch racing anymore and stick to time trials and i prefer the quieter SUP races too for the same reason. There is an argument to be made that tactical nous is (or should be considered) part of the SUP game but personally, the inclusion of TT's in the 11 cities was intended to replicate the tour de France approach and it should be applauded. When you look at the results of those particular stages, it gives a bit of insight into who the really strong paddlers are.

Yeah KOM as well deserves much respect. 

[Area 10]

2016
23" - 8.7" Thick - 14.8" Tail - 264L - 50-80kgs

2019
22.5" - 8.7" Thick - 13.8" Tail - 272L - 40-75kgs

2019
23.5" - 10.2" Thick - 14.4" Tail - 327L - 50-85kgs

I think the volume of the narrow boards is deceptive.
How should this volume help heavy paddlers when this is mostly above the water surface?
In troubled conditions ok, but in flat water?
If that would work, then I could stick some air balloons on the front and back of the board and would also have a lot of volume.
Or have I thought incorrectly about that?

Yes, anything that doesn’t touch water is basically holding you back. I think people tend to confuse volume with other design features that do make a difference and *tend to be* associated with volume, like high-sided rails. A canoe with thin sidewalls doesn’t have much volume, if you ignore the empty area inside it, but it will support a very large paddler. This was how e.g. the K15 worked. What heavier, stronger, paddlers do is introduce a lot of pitch, roll and yaw when the paddle a given size board, and this means that more of the board ends up at some point in touch with the water, quite apart from the extra volume that they displace. So heavier paddlers tend to prefer boards that have bigger surface areas, wider tails and noses and higher sidewalls (rails). With most designs this means more “volume”, although as I say, actually volume of foam isn’t really, in the main, what they should be thinking about. The change in waterline between a heavy and a light person won’t be that great in lost cases. But the change in dynamic movement of the board with the two different weight paddlers might be substantial.

[ukgm]

...... and this means that more of the board ends up at some point in touch with the water, quite apart from the extra volume that they displace.
The change in waterline between a heavy and a light person won’t be that great in lost cases. But the change in dynamic movement of the board with the two different weight paddlers might be substantial.

I agree completely with what you're saying. I would add to this by saying that the distribution of the volume (and its resulting centre of buoyancy) coupled with the dynamics of the different weight paddlers (in terms of position and stroke signature) may make a board useable or not. However, bear in mind that board profiles are designed with a given waterline in mind and even a 5-10mm shift in waterline (not an unreasonable change if you are 10-15Kg heavier than the team paddler that tested it) can turn a board into a dog.

A key issue surrounding this is that I know of a few female paddlers who feel that the current production boards are often designed with men in mind and due to their lighter mass feel too corky or too much to handle due to the proportionally higher windage.