Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums

Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums (http://www.snowboardingforum.com/forum.php)
-   Snowboarding General Chat (http://www.snowboardingforum.com/snowboarding-general-chat/)
-   -   Why don't companies publish equipment weight? (http://www.snowboardingforum.com/snowboarding-general-chat/68354-why-dont-companies-publish-equipment-weight.html)

BigmountainVMD 02-21-2013 06:41 PM

Why don't companies publish equipment weight?
 
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?

briancgrs 02-21-2013 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigmountainVMD (Post 755970)
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?

^what he said. :thumbsup:

bseracka 02-21-2013 07:04 PM

Mostly they don't publish weights, because at the end of the day it just doesn't matter.

Varza 02-21-2013 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bseracka (Post 756122)
Mostly they don't publish weights, because at the end of the day it just doesn't matter.

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...

briancgrs 02-21-2013 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bseracka (Post 756122)
Mostly they don't publish weights, because at the end of the day it just doesn't matter.

I disagree, I have bad knees and ankles from soccer. Demoed a proto ct which is significantly lighter and allowed for zero issues while riding the lift. Also when spinning I found it much easier to bring the board around when I didn't have enough pop. Maybe it's just me getting old but I actually could tell the difference.

BigmountainVMD 02-21-2013 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bseracka (Post 756122)
Mostly they don't publish weights, because at the end of the day it just doesn't matter.

So if bindings made of bricks and snowboards made of cement rode better, you would be all over that shit! We could totally get some iron bindings that are just as stiff as some carbon fiber ones... and cheaper too! If it doesn't matter... why is that not the trend?

Cars are getting lighter, bikes are getting lighter, so are snowboards, bindings and boots. You can find a weight for the first two... why not the snowboard stuff?

Sudden_Death 02-21-2013 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigmountainVMD (Post 756242)
Cars are getting lighter, bikes are getting lighter, so are snowboards, bindings and boots. You can find a weight for the first two... why not the snowboard stuff?

Probably because the car doesn't come in 143, 145, 148, 151, 154, 157, 161, 157W, 161W and so on. Only thing it might make sense for is bindings.

david_z 02-21-2013 08:26 PM

103 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by bseracka (Post 756122)
Mostly they don't publish weights, because at the end of the day it just doesn't matter.

This, pretty much. Also the 154 will weigh different from the 157 and the medium bindings less than the large, etc. so then you start worrying about the entire matrix of weights and surprise next thing you know you're snowboarding's equivalent of a weight weenie.

It's easier to just leave your wallet in the car if you want to shave a few grams, or drink one less beer, etc.

hktrdr 02-21-2013 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david_z (Post 756386)
This, pretty much. Also the 154 will weigh different from the 157 and the medium bindings less than the large, etc. so then you start worrying about the entire matrix of weights and surprise next thing you know you're snowboarding's equivalent of a weight weenie.

It's easier to just leave your wallet in the car if you want to shave a few grams, or drink one less beer, etc.

+1.

Are there differences in weight between items? Absolutely.
Do these difference have much or any effect for the vast majority of riding? Absolutely not.

Some of the other variables that are not specified would be much more useful - min/max width at the insert pack, mm of camber when unweighted, etc.

BigmountainVMD 02-21-2013 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sudden_Death (Post 756354)
Probably because the car doesn't come in 143, 145, 148, 151, 154, 157, 161, 157W, 161W and so on. Only thing it might make sense for is bindings.

Would it really be that hard? I don't think so. I'm not buying any "it's time consuming" or "it's too difficult" argument. Every other review for a board or binding says something like "these things are seriously light." Weight is a factor just like length, width or sidecut radius. Put a number behind it!

These guys do a bunch of bicycles in minutes. A snowboard company could easily do it.

2013 Trek Bikes – Actual Weights for Road & Mountain Bikes - Bike Rumor

I bet most of this forum knows how easy it is to weigh out a dime bag... get a bigger scale and boom, snowboards are no problem.

I'll take a 157 sack please...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2