Why don't companies publish equipment weight? - Page 6 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
SnowboardingForum.com is the premier Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2013, 12:30 PM   #51 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
BigmountainVMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sugarloaf, ME / Philly
Posts: 1,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poutanen View Post
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.
BigmountainVMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-23-2013, 12:40 PM   #52 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigmountainVMD View Post
That was my bad. Not trying to call you out here, just wanted to hear your opinion.
No worries about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigmountainVMD View Post
I would disagree and say that it nullifies your argument. Have you ever worn ankle weights? I promise you, your legs will be more sore when them at your ankles than in your pockets. Leverage man... leverage.

The weight position is the variable, the fulcrum (knee) and leg length are constant values, as is the position of the acting force (muscles). The muscular force needed to move the leg increases as the weight is moved further towards the opposite end of the leg. If the weight was just below the knee, less force would be needed to move the leg than if the weight was at the ankle. Same applies to the hip. Moving the weight to the body removes this leverage effect from the leg.
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.
Rather, in boarding most of the leg movements are flexing the ankles and knees/hips. For these movements the ankle weights would actually be closer to the fulcrum, i.e., have no impact on the muscle effort.
In contrast, with weights in the pockets every time you flex (bend/straighten) your knees you are basically do a squat with weights, adding significant effort.

For full disclosure: I use ankle weights for speed and strength training, but have yet to ride with them
hktrdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 12:41 PM   #53 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 122
Default

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.
Kauila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 12:48 PM   #54 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
BigmountainVMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sugarloaf, ME / Philly
Posts: 1,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hktrdr View Post
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.
Rather, in boarding most of the leg movements are flexing the ankles and knees/hips. For these movements the ankle weights would actually be closer to the fulcrum, i.e., have no impact on the muscle effort.
In contrast, with weights in the pockets every time you flex (bend/straighten) your knees you are basically do a squat with weights, adding significant effort.

For full disclosure: I use ankle weights for speed and strength training, but have yet to ride with them
Hmmm... I didn't think about squats with weights. That is pretty interesting. Which makes me think... the stronger ones legs are, the less all of this matters. Thanks for actually engaging in physics speak with me.

On to experiments! Who wants to ride with 10 lbs strapped to each binding?

Last edited by BigmountainVMD; 02-23-2013 at 12:51 PM.
BigmountainVMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 01:08 PM   #55 (permalink)
Reformed Creep-o-saurus
 
poutanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigmountainVMD View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hktrdr View Post
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.

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!
poutanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 01:59 PM   #56 (permalink)
Banned!
 
snowklinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: L-Town
Posts: 4,910
Default

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!
__________________
Support Local Business
"Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart!" - Ash
snowklinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 02:41 PM   #57 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
BigmountainVMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sugarloaf, ME / Philly
Posts: 1,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowklinger View Post
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!
Ha, no worries. I guess I'm just a sucker for real data and numbers. I crave knowledge man! I just want to know for curiosity sake!
BigmountainVMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 03:45 PM   #58 (permalink)
Reformed Creep-o-saurus
 
poutanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigmountainVMD View Post
Ha, no worries. I guess I'm just a sucker for real data and numbers. I crave knowledge man! I just want to know for curiosity sake!
Yeah I do find the industry is full of promises with little to no data. Look at EVERY hybrid boards spec sheet and they make them sound like they're going to be as good as a pow board in powder, and as good as an alpine board at carving... They should rename them compromise boards, because that's exactly what they are!

Same thing with stiffness. Everyone mentions feeling stiffness, but has anybody here ever measured it?!? I did, I put my board on two binders, then placed stacks of paper in the centre until it touched the table. Unfortunately I haven't done it with any more boards so I have nothing to compare it to.

Theoretically you could build a machine to test a boards longitudinal and torsional stiffness.
poutanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 04:34 PM   #59 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
BigmountainVMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sugarloaf, ME / Philly
Posts: 1,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poutanen View Post
Yeah I do find the industry is full of promises with little to no data. Look at EVERY hybrid boards spec sheet and they make them sound like they're going to be as good as a pow board in powder, and as good as an alpine board at carving... They should rename them compromise boards, because that's exactly what they are!

Same thing with stiffness. Everyone mentions feeling stiffness, but has anybody here ever measured it?!? I did, I put my board on two binders, then placed stacks of paper in the centre until it touched the table. Unfortunately I haven't done it with any more boards so I have nothing to compare it to.

Theoretically you could build a machine to test a boards longitudinal and torsional stiffness.
We might be on to something here!!! Call it the PP (Poutanen Pressure) Test! I think some standardization tests in the industry could be welcome! You might run into some issues with different profiles, but all in all, it would take X much force to bend board Y amount.
BigmountainVMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 04:55 PM   #60 (permalink)
Official SBF Blogger
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,401
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poutanen View Post
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.
Yeah I think this is pretty much accepted fact. the compromise is that the wider stance gives you better balance for jibs. since the guys riding most parks aren't throwing double cork 12s, the tradeoff for jibs in favor of spin is a no-brainer. That said, if you're 5'8" and rocking a 24" stance you might wanna reconsider
david_z is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums