The dimensions of the FX 14 are a significant departure from previous shapes. In addition to the volume, the rails are 7.75 inches. Unless I am mistaken, that is 0.75 inches thicker than any other SIC board. ?????!!!! Most are 7 inches. Niels, have you measured the rails on your 26?

Well there's your answer right there, as it's 11% thicker, which all things else being equal, would boost the volume from 266 to 290 liters, +\- .

Select to expand quote

Rideordie said..
the rails are 7.75 inches.

That is fairly thick. My Eradicator has seven inches rails and I would rather loose 0.5" rather than add to that.

Will be interesting to see what the rails are on the 26. If they are 7 inches then it appears that we have a better idea what was changed.

You know, thickness can be a good thing. Although a thinner board with less volume might enhance stability, a thicker board has less water washing over it to slow it down. Even if the water doesn't stay on the deck, it creates drag. There is a flip side to every argument.

Select to expand quote

SUPerD said..
You know, thickness can be a good thing. Although a thinner board with less volume might enhance stability, a thicker board has less water washing over it to slow it down. Even if the water doesn't stay on the deck, it creates drag. There is a flip side to every argument.

Agreed, the question is where is the sweet spot and for which use. Pure down-winding is one thing but side chop for an all-around board is another. Not sure where is the best compromise. I can only relate to my boards. The Eradicator started at 7" in 2014/2015 but was thinned down in 2015 to 6.5" and I do think that it was for the best.
Granted the Eradicator is likely closer of a flat water board than an All-around board.

Select to expand quote

SUPerD said..
Well there's your answer right there, as it's 11% thicker, which all things else being equal, would boost the volume from 266 to 290 liters, +\- .

Thats the thing isn't it SuperD, all thing are not equal..

To be honest I hav'nt measured the thickness of the rail on any board ever

Rail thickness is something I'm paying more attention to these days. It affects the degree of pitch of the board, especially when you are sprinting. One of the problems that the team riders might report with lower volume boards is pitching (a rocking movement fore to aft) when you really put the power down. This can waste just about all the extra effort you are putting in, and create a speed upper limit. Often, you'll only notice this on a board when you are really at full blast. But given that sprint speed is so critical these days for races - in order to get to the front in races, I can imagine that team riders would be very preoccupied with it. So my guess is that this is the issue being addressed with the FX, maybe.

Unfortunately, thick rails also catch a lot of wind and chop when quartering, and also make a board quite a bit less stable. But probably for top riders these are secondary concerns (especially stability). If you can't get into the front pack at the start of a race, to draft the top people, and then do not have the sprint speed to overtake the person you are drafting at the end, then you are never going to win a race.

For those of us who don't race, and paddle mixed conditions, maybe we'd be happier with a thinner-railed, more stable board. But my SICs have "SIC Racing" written on the rails, and that tells you a lot about their performance aspirations.

But this is just a guess. I have been particularly struck by how little pitching my Bark Vapor has under full power, and so have been wondering if this is a design opportunity for these higher volume nose designs that goes some way to offset the inherently slower feature of presenting a blunter aspect to the water in front of you.

Select to expand quote

SurfNiels said..

SUPerD said..
Well there's your answer right there, as it's 11% thicker, which all things else being equal, would boost the volume from 266 to 290 liters, +\- .

Thats the thing isn't it SuperD, all thing are not equal..

To be honest I hav'nt measured the thickness of the rail on any board ever

Yes, of course, you are correct Niels. I was only trying to make a point about how little additional thickness is needed to substantially add to a boards volume.

Today, I was looking through some old posts and I did actually find a 2016 FX 14 25. It was posted by the Hong Kong Stand Up Paddleboard Association on Facebook on January 20, 2016. I read more closely and I saw SurfNiels was asking question about the size. They answered and explained the whole pre-production 26 thing and even posted a picture of the bottom with the real production board specs that DO exactly match the catalog specs. So, it appears that somehow at least Hong Kong got an early delivery. So that should put an end to any production board size speculation.

Top

Front

Rear

Top

Bottom in Plastic

Great find, Rideordie. Wow that is a gorgeous looking board. I'm sure those pics will make it even harder for the guys who are waiting for their deliveries

Select to expand quote

Rideordie said..
They answered and explained the whole pre-production 26 thing and even posted a picture of the bottom with the real production board specs that DO exactly match the catalog specs. So, it appears that somehow at least Hong Kong got an early delivery. So that should put an end to any production board size speculation.

Out of curiosity what was the explanation and rationale for the change in specs?

Cheers

Luc,
There never really has been an explanation. Here is what the Hong Kong SUP Paddleboard Assn, said to Niels. "I think it is because the one you paddled is a distributor sample board, back to 2015 September all SIC distributors around the world may choose to order a sample/demo to showcase this latest model, but that's is not a finalized board." So, I would conclude that SIC put samples out there while the board was still in development. I did not see any review comments. But, at least we have some pics of the "real deal" and we know that it is a 14x25 290 liter board, presumably with 7.75 inch rail width.

Either way, the FX is drop dead sexy. Nice graphics, bold without being too cartoonish...and of course it's red. (I'm pretty stoked, as SIC uses the same colour schemes through out their range... including the Bullet I'm starting to get excited about.. )

A10, I don't think those 7.75" thick rails will be too easily blown around, they look pretty soft, at least at the nose.

Well, the explanation for the change in specs isn't going to be that it makes the FX slower, is it? Haven't we just about done this to death now? :)

Unless we hear strong evidence otherwise, let's assume that the various pieces of information gleaned from various sources are correct, and that Mark Raaphorst decided after rider feedback to make the board narrower and add volume, to make it faster. And that you guys who are waiting are going to get a 14ft x 25" board with 290L of flotation.

Maybe also, Mark got to hear of plenty of other competitor boards that are coming out that are 25" or narrower, and didn't want to go too wide this time. One initial criticism of the X14 was that it was a bit wider than the majority of the market who could afford that board wanted, so I can imagine he might want to avoid that situation again. Of course, whether reducing the width by an inch actually makes a board faster is another matter. I've done a lot of board testing with a lot of different paddlers and I'm consistently amazed at how similar people's speeds are no matter what the board widths are. It's all about the paddler, really, given a certain length. But perception is everything in sales, and everyone seems to want to go as narrow as possible almost as a matter of pride these days. So if you are a board maker who wants to shift some units, you'd better make sure that your boards appeal to the "must go narrower" market. After all, what other reason is there to buy a new race board? You can't go longer than 14ft, if you want to race it in the most competitive divisions at most races round the world. Going lighter would be prohibitively expensive. No-one seems to buy an expensive board because it boasts increased durability. So, really, the easiest way to convince someone to buy another board is to offer them a narrower one and tell them that it will be faster.

But maybe I'm just an old cynic.

Select to expand quote

Rideordie said..
Today, I was looking through some old posts and I did actually find a 2016 FX 14 25. It was posted by the Hong Kong Stand Up Paddleboard Association on Facebook on January 20, 2016. I read more closely and I saw SurfNiels was asking question about the size. They answered and explained the whole pre-production 26 thing and even posted a picture of the bottom with the real production board specs that DO exactly match the catalog specs. So, it appears that somehow at least Hong Kong got an early delivery. So that should put an end to any production board size speculation.

Good find. I commented on the pics and meant to put them here but after a few days offline I suddenly wasn't able to find them again. It will be exciting to see whats in the containers when they get here

"I wonder how long we can keep talking about this FX board "

I can't resist the temptation to now comment on this, particularly in light of my mate "Two Nutters" (he who was formerly known as Area 10) comments on page 2.
And especially now we've got to (near) the bottom of the width & volume issue.

I've just sold my 2013 Glide Javelin and ordered a new FX14Pro. The Jav has been a great board - it's well built and still fast - I'd argue faster than many of the newer 14's that I paddle against. But we all like our new toys, and it's always nice to imagine that you're paddling in Hawaii, and SIC boards are just plain sexy.

So I demo'd the SIC model a few times, with the last time in our training crew in mixed conditions - everything from dead flat water behind a breakwater to windy, open chop. After paddling the Jav for so long the comparison was pretty easy - the SIC was more stable, easy to kick turn, and felt as fast if not faster (it's red, after all!).

But I was concerned that the SIC did not ride over the chop as well as the Jav - it tended to plough into it more. This could be just bow design - the Jav has a nice V'd nose with an accentuated bow rocker, or it could be a lack of volume in the SIC. (Or hey, just my bad paddling).
I was hoping that I had made the right move, given that we generally paddle in some sort of chop on Port Phillip Bay.

Checking the Jav volume, it is 284litres. So the SIC volume increase from 255 up to 290 seems like a positive move, from my in-expert opinion. The loss of an inch in width will be interesting but not a deal breaker IMO. It was pretty stable already.

So as long as it turns up in the container soon (unlike my good buddy's Unlimited that didn't seem to make it), I think it will be good. It will sit nicely with the Bullet 12 6 and the hollow moulded F16!!!

So I am just a recent convert to SIC and I am trying to divest myself of my blue boards. I have an X-14 and now thinking a 12'6 bullet or a FX 12'6 I dont really know enough about them to really understand the difference

Very different boards. The Bullet is a pocket downwind board that surfs well (for a 12-6) as well. It is a nice all-round recreational ocean board as well, but it isn't a race board. No-one really knows much about the 12-6 FX at this stage (the model is too new), but I think it is positioned as an ocean racer that is also flat-water race-capable, and downwindable. So you can expect the FX to require more skills to use, be faster if you can, and more oriented towards flat water and race performance rather than downwind/surf/general ocean paddling. Hope this helps.

Why go 12-6 rather than 14?

I'd say if you have a X-14 and you paddle in Canberra you have all the SIC boards you NEED.
Whether that's all the SIC boards you WANT is probably a different answer.
You don't need a Bullet on Canberra's inland waters though, unless it's for the wife / kids / newbie friends, or occasional lake downwinder(?)

Select to expand quote

Rideordie said..
...the rails are 7.75 inches.

Where does that number come from? Usually any listed thickness is the thickest part of the board and in this case would be forward of the standing area.

Thankfully this whole FX dimensions speculation is over (hopefully). Although oddly, they are exactly what Mark stated they would be, yet everyone seemed hellbent on conjouring up something to their personal preference. Volume wise, it's a no go and no big deal; I'm pretty done with lugging a 14' race board around.

2016 SIC catalog page 31 of 66, says "Thickness 7.75 inches 19.7 cm". I should have said thickness instead of "rails" in my comments. Point being that this board is substantially thicker than their usual 14 footer.

Select to expand quote

Rideordie said...
2016 SIC catalog page 31 of 66, says "Thickness 7.75 inches 19.7 cm". I should have said thickness instead of "rails" in my comments. Point being that this board is substantially thicker than their usual 14 footer.

I didn't see any thickness statistics in the 2016 catalog. I'm obviously looking in the wrong place. What is the thickness of the X14, for instance, for comparison?

Oh hang on... I was looking at the 2015 catalogue. The 2016 one shows the X14 as 6.81" thick. So, yeah, the FX is pretty think if it's 7.75". The X14 is claimed to be enough volume for a larger paddler, so I guess the FX is too, despite the narrower profile. Nearly an inch thicker is quite a lot. I'm really looking forward to you guys getting your boards and finding out the advantages of the extra thickness.

It would be helpful if the thickness was given for the standing area and not just overall thickness. There is a substantial difference between the thickest part of the board (forward of the standing area) where the deck has a inverted V to shed water.

Select to expand quote

Helmy said..
I'd say if you have a X-14 and you paddle in Canberra you have all the SIC boards you NEED.
Whether that's all the SIC boards you WANT is probably a different answer.
You don't need a Bullet on Canberra's inland waters though, unless it's for the wife / kids / newbie friends, or occasional lake downwinder(?)

Helmy if that was all I did I am sure you are right but I spend a good deal of time in places other than canberra, I am starting to do more DW and have entered in the BOP at Noosa so getting the 12'6 Bullet would be a good step. The FX is something that one of the lads mentioned the other week as something that was new and I might consider. So whilst i appreciate your opinion its a bit off the mark about what I NEED vs what I WANT.