Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums banner

Why don't companies publish equipment weight?

16K views 71 replies 23 participants last post by  GonzoEatsFish 
#1 ·
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.

Thoughts?
 
See less See more
#4 ·
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...
 
#12 ·
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.
 
#13 · (Edited)
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.
 
#17 ·
Good point. I'm curious what the standard deviation would look like.

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.
Yeah, I was just saying they are the only people even attempting to quantify it.
 
#14 · (Edited)
It doesn't matter.. IMO.

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.

... Excluding the antiques I used to ride, haha.
 
#23 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
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.
 
#36 ·
I'd lose the phone, pipe, weed, wallet, flask, water, knife, gopro, and random junk in my pockets before caring about how much my setup weighs.
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.
 
#51 ·
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.
I love that you used this example because I have done a lot of research on this for my car. Cost is not worth the benefit, but it is funny to see how much people will pay to reduce unsprung weight and rotational mass. It's extra funny, because the newest model is about to be released in EU (VW) and the new chassis is supposed to knock off 600 lbs from the car... People are paying 600 dollars for lightweight flywheels and 1000s of dollars for lightweight wheels that give them maybe 20 lbs weight reduction and 10 more hp at the wheels.
 
#55 ·
I love that you used this example because I have done a lot of research on this for my car. Cost is not worth the benefit, but it is funny to see how much people will pay to reduce unsprung weight and rotational mass. It's extra funny, because the newest model is about to be released in EU (VW) and the new chassis is supposed to knock off 600 lbs from the car... People are paying 600 dollars for lightweight flywheels and 1000s of dollars for lightweight wheels that give them maybe 20 lbs weight reduction and 10 more hp at the wheels.
Yeah I was right into cars for a LONG time! Still work on my old beast and engage in car forums but not so much anymore. The physics you learn about when debating car stuff is really interesting!

The fact that rims and tires are both unsprung AND rotational weight makes them arguably the single most important tuning feature on a car. It always kills me that people go +2 or more on the rim diameters, and extra wide tires saying that it increases handling. Unless you need room for a big brake kit, the lightest factory size or +1 rims and tires are arguably going to be the best handling set you can get for your car!

Don't agree with that. When boarding we are not really moving our legs the same way as when we are walking, i.e., with knees and hips being the fulcrum of the movement.
Hmmm, I see your point. And on-piste that makes sense. But when the slopes get rough our legs are acting more like suspension. When you're going over moguls, or reacting quickly in the trees you're making lots of quick motions in many directions with your legs.

Going to the next discipline, if you're in the park doing spin tricks, weight on your body would be close to the centre of gravity, while weight in your board/bindings/boots would be much further out. Watch a figure skater spin, and when they pull their arms in (i.e. all the weight coming towards the centre) they actually accelerate without putting any more energy into the spin itself. This is why even identical model boards will be much easier to spin if one's shorter, all the additional weight is out at the tips.

Actually this leads into another theory of mine, the extra wide (24+") stances that some guys ride with now actually hurt their park performance. The bindings, boots, and your lower legs are that much further apart making it take more energy to spin at the same spin speed. :dizzy:

Here's one last caveat: Through rough terrain I'd rather a stiffer heavy board, than a soft light board. But if I could have a stiff light board I think I'd rather that! :yahoo:
 
#53 ·
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.
 
#56 ·
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:giggle:

But I love u BigMountainVMD don't take it personal!
 
#63 ·
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 :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top