Is there a reason snowboard companies do not advertise the actual weight of their products? I feel, that in a sport where the term "lightweight" is thrown around more than anything, you would think that someone, at LEAST a review company, would publish actual weights of snowboards, bindings and boots.
This is all coming from a recent purchase I made... a pair of 2013 Burton Cartel bindings (whiskeymilitia for $140.) I read some stuff on them, I heard they were "lightweight." Got them in the mail, and they are significantly heavier than my 2012 Prophecys. I know the Prophecys are a "higher end" binding, but I would have liked to know beforehand. Maybe the Cartels are lighter than many other bindings, but all I am saying is why not just throw up the number of grams or ounces for comparison sake?
How much weight is shaved off a T. Rice pro if you buy the HP model? How much does do 32 Ultralight boots or a Ride Highlife UL snowboard actually weigh? Which are lighter, Burton Diodes or Union MC Metafuses?
I'm not trying to argue lighter is better, but it would simply be nice to know, and one might be tempted to try some new/different brands because of it.
Oh it does, at least when the parking lot is full and you have to lug the stuff all the way up to the lodge :laugh:
But really, if it doesn't matter, why do they advertise "lightweight"? And if they advertise it, why not post the numbers to back it up? :dunno: Basically, what BigmountainVMD said...
I agree that reviewers should do it. I don't think the companies really want to be called on their claims, but if a reviewer wants to put those phrases out there then they should back them up.
This is the only reason I could think of that a company would not want to publish the data. If Libs basalt "HP" scheme only knocked off 10 grams... no one would pay 200 more for the upgraded board.
I just think review companies should sack up and weigh some shit. It would be so damn easy...
Thegoodride.com has the closest I've seen and actually gives equipment up to 5 stars based on weight, but thinking about the difference between a 3 and a 4... it doesn't really help much.
Have you ever picked up 2 large pieces of wood that were the same size but had the exact same weight? If snowboards were made of composite materials (like bikes) then It would be easy to publish accurate weights, but I think anything with a wood core is going to vary too much from board to board when they are being produced, much like 2 of the same guitars can vary quite a bit in actual weight, because that's what happens when you make things out of natural products. That would be my guess as to why you don't see weights listed for snowboards.
Of course TheGoodRide star ratings are also pretty much random and have no/little connection to actual weights (or in some cases even their own reviews).
Case in point: NS Cobra (which is a light deck) has the same 2 star 'average' weight rating as, say, my Skate Banana (which, in fact, does weigh more).
Still, it makes no difference in use - other then when lugging the board up the mountain maybe.
They get lighter each year which is all that matters. It may be a liability thing as well. Maybe the guy who sued subway for getting 11" foot-longs is a boarder? Can't be to careful these days
To many products to bother really, Bikes can be significantly heavier than other brands and affect the rider more than a snowboard. I'd say the Never Summer boards are some of the heavier boards I've owned, but I still like them.
Not to mention board flex. My lighter board although the same flex rating as my heavier one (acc thegoodride and each brands rating/website), is not as flexy.
seriously? this thread is about 3 pages too long.:dunno:
I'm glad you guys all care about how much your gear weighs. I must have been missing something today when I was hiking the ridge and dropping into untouched steeps and not thinking about that shit at all. I'm headed back in the morning for more of the same I doubt I'll even remember to laugh about this post.
Keep up the good work internet.
:thumbsup:
sorry I'm such an asshole, I love you all, but the weight of your gear is stupid to my stupid mind so there.
it doesn't matter. split bindings post their weight. there are times there is more snow and ice on the board
actually the older I get the less it matters....how far in the parking lot, how much the board weighs, how far the hike is, how many laps...perhaps I'm just happy to still be riding.
Here's the real answer. Companies don't post weights because they have nothing to gain from it. In fact they stand to lose a lot from it. Companies posting weights would result in a weight war. Right now they have the freedom to design a product that performs and is durable. If they have to make stuff lighter then it will break more often and warranty claims go up. You also run into customers buying the wrong gear trying to save weight. Undersized boots, bindings, and boards would happen a lot.
I don't weigh any of my equipment. A huge complaint among non-helmet wearers is they don't like the extra weight on their head. And it's a Smith Vantage... not a Maze.
Not to open up the debate again, but comparing gear weight to weight you carry, or your suit, is apples to oranges. Anybody here ever heard of unsprung weight in a car? It's the rims, tires, brakes, hubs, and portions of the strut. If you can shave a couple pounds of unsprung weight off a car it'll make a real difference in lap times.
So for us, boards, boots and bindings are the unsprung weight at the end of our springs (legs). You will feel a pound or two under your feet that you wouldn't feel if you carried it in your pockets.
Getting back to the question posted by the OP, my guess is that companies don't publish snowboard weights because then that would be another quantifiable standard that their QC would have to conform to. More testing => more cost passed on to the customer in terms of higher price. Somewhere along the line, I'm sure some marketing person figured that the costs of doing so outweighed the benefits (benefits as defined by marketing, meaning more boards sold, not meaning a lighter, higher tech, "better" board). Or maybe the marketing team figured, best leave the weight debate to bloggers/gear reviewers/forum posters, so they don't have to be accountable to what is being quantified.
I know bike companies publish weights, but probably because the cyclists who really care are willing to spend upwards of $800-$1,000+ for a bike.
I was trying to be sarcastic or whatever earlier, but my point remains and several others have made it, it just doesn't matter. It's something an engineer from one company may take another company's product and weight it for comparison to their own, but publishing that data for you or the competition is pointless on pretty much every level. Like this thread
But I love u BigMountainVMD don't take it personal!
The one area I see weight really matters is back country. If you are spending a day, or even doing some winter camping. Weight matters, you have so much gear, food, water.
I don't have a split board yet. So I have my snowshoes on, and carry my board on my pack. I wish it was lighter
Not to mention you can add not only weight loss and gain but also strength gain (and loss). Just a little stronger noodle arms will make that board and bindings seems less heavy. :laugh:
I found ur link because of very disparity that some boards are 9- 15 lbs.. I think 6 lbs is a very big deal.. bindings and boots still aside. ..
Skinning, jumping, glading, piste, ungroomed.. weights will all perform very differently.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
1M posts
46.5K members
Since 2006
A forum community dedicated to all Snowboarding enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about equipment reviews, tips, traveling, gear troubleshooting, share photos, and more!