Why don't companies publish equipment weight? - 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 02-21-2013, 06:41 PM   #1 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
BigmountainVMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sugarloaf, ME / Philly
Posts: 1,204
Default 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?
BigmountainVMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-21-2013, 06:45 PM   #2 (permalink)
Member
 
briancgrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigmountainVMD View Post
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.
briancgrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 07:04 PM   #3 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,283
Default

Mostly they don't publish weights, because at the end of the day it just doesn't matter.
bseracka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 07:14 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Varza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bseracka View Post
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

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? Basically, what BigmountainVMD said...
Varza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 07:16 PM   #5 (permalink)
Member
 
briancgrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bseracka View Post
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.
briancgrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 07:39 PM   #6 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
BigmountainVMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sugarloaf, ME / Philly
Posts: 1,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bseracka View Post
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?
BigmountainVMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 08:24 PM   #7 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Sudden_Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa, On
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigmountainVMD View Post
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.
Sudden_Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 08:26 PM   #8 (permalink)
Official SBF Blogger
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,445
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bseracka View Post
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.
david_z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 08:46 PM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david_z View Post
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.
hktrdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 09:00 PM   #10 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
BigmountainVMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sugarloaf, ME / Philly
Posts: 1,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sudden_Death View Post
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...

Last edited by BigmountainVMD; 02-21-2013 at 09:06 PM.
BigmountainVMD 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 02:24 PM.



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