BigmountainVMD

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.

hktrdr

No worries about that.

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

Kauila

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.

BigmountainVMD

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?

poutanen

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!

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!

snowklinger

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!

__________________
is it late october yet?

BigmountainVMD

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!

poutanen

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.

BigmountainVMD

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.

david_z

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