# Why don't companies publish equipment weight?



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

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 (Feb 24, 2012)

BigmountainVMD said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


^what he said. :thumbsup:


----------



## bseracka (Nov 14, 2011)

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


----------



## Varza (Jan 6, 2013)

bseracka said:


> 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 (Feb 24, 2012)

bseracka said:


> 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 (Oct 9, 2011)

bseracka said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2011)

BigmountainVMD said:


> 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 (Dec 14, 2009)

bseracka said:


> 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 (Apr 3, 2012)

david_z said:


> 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 (Oct 9, 2011)

Sudden_Death said:


> 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...


----------



## Sudden_Death (Mar 23, 2011)

I agree that reviewers should do it. I don't think the companies really want to be called on their claims, but if a reviewer wants to put those phrases out there then they should back them up.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

Sudden_Death said:


> I agree that reviewers should do it. I don't think the companies really want to be called on their claims, but if a reviewer wants to put those phrases out there then they should back them up.


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.


----------



## TorpedoVegas (Dec 25, 2011)

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.


----------



## MarshallV82 (Apr 6, 2011)

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.


----------



## Soggysnow (Sep 11, 2012)

Some companies do. Pretty sure my Raiden bindings and my NS snowboard had the weights advertised.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

BigmountainVMD said:


> 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.*


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.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

TorpedoVegas said:


> 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.


Good point. I'm curious what the standard deviation would look like.



hktrdr said:


> 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.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

BigmountainVMD said:


> Yeah, I was just saying they are the only people even attempting to quantify it.


Which is actually pretty retarded - weight is an easily measured characteristic. So there is no need 'quantify' it (i.e., put a number to non-measurable variable). They should just measure it - as it is, they are doing exactly the same as the advertising guys in the companies: Declaring things 'lightweight' without any basis.

What they are really doing is rating 'how heavy the board/binding/boot feels to them' - which is probably more influenced by a bunch of factors other than weight.


----------



## Soggysnow (Sep 11, 2012)

Not to mention board flex. My lighter board although the same flex rating as my heavier one (acc thegoodride and each brands rating/website), is not as flexy.


----------



## crash77 (Jan 24, 2011)

BigmountainVMD said:


> 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*.


They really should put the actual weight if they're going use weight as a category of evaluation.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

TorpedoVegas said:


> 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.


Very good argument. However, I would expect a good snowboard company to try to match up materials to keep the average weights within a narrow range, if for no other reason than the strength of the wood probably varies directly with the weight. You don't want to put out a battleship and a barkskin canoe under the same model name.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

I frequently measure boards I buy or get my hands on... Some pics relative to this thread... All weights are in grams.

2012 Burton Custom 156









2011 Burton T7 159









2012 Burton Custom EST Bindings (Medium)









2010 Burton C60 EST Bindings (Medium)


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

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.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

snowklinger said:


> I'm glad you guys all care about how much your gear weighs.



More of a curiosity thing for me. I just put the heavy C60s in place of the Customs on that blue board. :dunno:


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

poutanen said:


> More of a curiosity thing for me. I just put the heavy C60s in place of the Customs on that blue board. :dunno:


That's why I put disclaimers in because I love you sir, but people who discuss weight as a selling point or anything beyond curiousity....:dunno:

Stuff like this comes up every once in awhile and I take it as a personal responsibility to shit on it


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

snowklinger said:


> That's why I put disclaimers in because I love you sir, but people who discuss weight as a selling point or anything beyond curiousity....:dunno:


One thing that's funny is my current board has FLP in the name which stands for "Fucking Light Project", and the board weighs more than the T7!!! :laugh:


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

poutanen said:


> One thing that's funny is my current board has FLP in the name which stands for "Fucking Light Project", and the board weighs more than the T7!!! :laugh:


Maybe because it was an LED prototype and weight had nothing to do with it? You should plug that fucker in, you'll be like "ohhhhh, now I get it..."


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

snowklinger said:


> Maybe because it was an LED prototype and weight had nothing to do with it? You should plug that fucker in, you'll be like "ohhhhh, now I get it..."


Wait wouldn't the fucking light be a bad neon animated sign outside a classy nudie bar?

Actually I'm still waiting to hit 88 MPH on this thing to see if my flux capacitor is working!!! :yahoo:

Edit: this thread needs some Al Bundy


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

it doesn't matter. split bindings post their weight. there are times there is more snow and ice on the board 

actually the older I get the less it matters....how far in the parking lot, how much the board weighs, how far the hike is, how many laps...perhaps I'm just happy to still be riding.


----------



## john doe (Nov 6, 2009)

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.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

snowklinger said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


This is not an "I want the lightest gear" thread, it is a "why advertise a product as lightweight and not actually publish it's weight" thread.




poutanen said:


> More of a curiosity thing for me. I just put the heavy C60s in place of the Customs on that blue board. :dunno:


See!!!! This shit is interesting to me!! You take Burton's top of the line, lightweight, high performance bindings from 2010 and compare them to an entry level binding from 2012... both EST, both medium... the difference is almost half a kg!! That's half a pound per binding. I wonder how a medium Diode compares?

When it comes down to it, it is just another factor, which sometimes is welcome. You see two bindings from two different companies. Same flex patterns, similar price, great reviews of each. What else is there to help you decide?

In the grand scheme of things, I find letting weight be a factor to be far less atrocious than letting color be a factor. 




john doe said:


> 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.


Yeah, I would not want to see a weight war. And you would have every newb riding around with the stiffest, lightweight, carbon fiber bindings.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

BigmountainVMD said:


> See!!!! This shit is interesting to me!! You take Burton's top of the line, lightweight, high performance bindings from 2010 and compare them to an entry level binding from 2012... both EST, both medium... the difference is almost half a kg!! That's half a pound per binding. I wonder how a medium Diode compares?


Yeah I was a bit surprised by the difference. It's actually about 400g difference which is almost a full pound!

I don't have EST Diodes but I do have Medium Re:Flex Diodes. I'll weight them next time they're off the board.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Do y'all weight weenies weigh your outerwear, too? I suppose you all use the Smith Maze helmet which AFAIK is the lightest one out there.:cheeky4:


----------



## Varza (Jan 6, 2013)

BigmountainVMD said:


> When it comes down to it, it is just another factor, which sometimes is welcome. You see two bindings from two different companies. Same flex patterns, similar price, great reviews of each. *What else is there to help you decide?*
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, I find letting weight be a factor to be far less atrocious than letting color be a factor.


What else? Color!  oh, wait... 

When ALL things are equal, then yes, I will go for color as a factor. But all things are seldom equal. One is usually at lease a couple cents cheaper...


----------



## PDubz (Feb 17, 2013)

I'm not concerned. 

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. 

haha


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

PDubz said:


> 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.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

poutanen said:


> 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.


Not buying that at all. In fact, I reckon the opposite might be the case - adding a pound of weight to your bindings plus a couple of pounds to the board will make much less of a difference than having an additional 1.5kg in your backpack.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

hktrdr said:


> Not buying that at all. In fact, I reckon the opposite might be the case - adding a pound of weight to your bindings plus a couple of pounds to the board will make much less of a difference than having an additional 1.5kg in your backpack.


Except for that all too common scenario when you are hiking with your board on your backpack...

His statement was totally valid. Take some 5 lb ankle weights and put them on your ankles for a day. Then just put them in the pocket of your hoodie. In which scenario would you have more soreness in your legs?

I would like to reiterate that this thread was not to argue about weight reduction of a few grams... per all these weight weenie comments. The purpose was to identify a reason why companies advertise light weight products but do not post actual weights.

You are all lying if you claim that when you pick up a new pair of boots or bindings and they are super duper light, you don't say "wow these are friggin' light!" Often, for people in many different scenarios, you can't physically pick up an item and examine it (online purchases, especially in other countries.) In these cases, I think a weight would give you a better mental feel of what you are purchasing.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

david_z said:


> Do y'all weight weenies weigh your outerwear, too? I suppose you all use the Smith Maze helmet which AFAIK is the lightest one out there.:cheeky4:


I don't weigh any of my equipment. A huge complaint among non-helmet wearers is they don't like the extra weight on their head. And it's a Smith Vantage... not a Maze.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

hktrdr said:


> Not buying that at all. In fact, I reckon the opposite might be the case - adding a pound of weight to your bindings plus a couple of pounds to the board will make much less of a difference than having an additional 1.5kg in your backpack.


I'm about 15 pounds heavier this year than when I finished last year (beer addiction!)... If I were to add 15 pounds to my board/boots/bindings I think it'd be almost unrideable!


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

BigmountainVMD said:


> Except for that all too common scenario when you are hiking with your board on your backpack...


I do not think it is that common of a scenario - but even if, I had already acknowledged that caveat ~25 posts ago.

In any case, it is not relevant for the point poutanen made and which I was commenting on.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

poutanen said:


> I'm about 15 pounds heavier this year than when I finished last year (beer addiction!)... If I were to add 15 pounds to my board/boots/bindings I think it'd be almost unrideable!


You were carrying 15 pounds of beer in your backpack? I like your style.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

hktrdr said:


> You were carrying 15 pounds of beer in your backpack? I like your style.


15 pounds in my belly pack! :yahoo:

The funny thing is, last year I started the season about 175, and dropped to about 160 by the end of the season (diet and exercise)... And I found myself getting tired more quickly at the end of the season. This year I started as a fat slob again and I'm having a great year?!? :dizzy:


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

hktrdr said:


> I do not think it is that common of a scenario - but even if, I had already acknowledged that caveat ~25 posts ago.
> 
> In any case, it is not relevant for the point poutanen made and which I was commenting on.


And your rebuttal to my ankle weights comment which directly relates to poutanen's theory? I'm curious how you think that doesn't make sense.

Why is the industry moving toward more lightweight gear? Why is top tier equipment constantly being developed with weight reduction kept in mind?

Because people want it, that's why. I will always consider functionality over weight, but all else being equal, I would go for the lighter option.

How about freestyle boards with low swing weight? Why is that advertised so often? Cause people want it! Guess how it is done... weight reduction techniques!


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

poutanen said:


> 15 pounds in my belly pack! :yahoo:
> 
> The funny thing is, last year I started the season about 175, and dropped to about 160 by the end of the season (diet and exercise)... And I found myself getting tired more quickly at the end of the season. This year I started as a fat slob again and I'm having a great year?!? :dizzy:


When I am doing multiple back to back, week to week days, I find more and more how important a good breakfast and lunch are to riding a full day. It's not eating an entire cow for dinner that I find extremely difficult.


----------



## crash77 (Jan 24, 2011)

BigmountainVMD said:


> Take some 5 lb ankle weights and put them on your ankles for a day. Then just put them in the pocket of your hoodie. In which scenario would you have more soreness in your legs?


Great point...really puts it in perspective. 

I don't see a negative side to stating the actual weight (or at least the weight range when it comes to boards), specifically for products that use lightweight/feather as a selling point for the consumer.

I believe they don't advertise this info because "lightweight" or "feather" is probably an overstatement compared to the actual weight or weight loss of said product.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

crash77 said:


> Great point...really puts it in perspective.
> 
> I don't see a negative side to stating the actual weight (or at least the weight range when it comes to boards), specifically for products that use lightweight/feather as a selling point for the consumer.
> 
> I believe they don't advertise this info because "lightweight" or "feather" is probably an overstatement compared to the actual weight or weight loss of said product.


Yes! It is a leverage effect!! All the weight is at the end of your legs, so smaller differences of weight have a larger effect on what you feel.

I totally agree here. They describe a product as lightweight, but if you actually weigh it, the product is negligibly lighter.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

BigmountainVMD said:


> And your rebuttal to my ankle weights comment which directly relates to poutanen's theory? I'm curious how you think that doesn't make sense.


You edited your post, adding the ankle weight point after I had responded.
But to address your point:


BigmountainVMD said:


> His statement was totally valid. Take some 5 lb ankle weights and put them on your ankles for a day. Then just put them in the pocket of your hoodie. In which scenario would you have more soreness in your legs?


That jut supports my argument - your legs would be way more tired in the latter scenario (weights in pockets - or backpack, or wherever else) than when wearing the weights around the ankles.


----------



## crash77 (Jan 24, 2011)

BigmountainVMD said:


> Yes! It is a leverage effect!! All the weight is at the end of your legs, so smaller differences of weight have a larger effect on what you feel.
> 
> I totally agree here. They describe a product as lightweight, but if you actually weigh it, the product is negligibly lighter.


Yeah, because you know shaving 10 grams is technically a weight reduction.:sarcasm:


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

hktrdr said:


> You edited your post, adding the ankle weight point after I had responded.


That was my bad. Not trying to call you out here, just wanted to hear your opinion.



hktrdr said:


> That jut supports my argument - your legs would be way more tired in the latter scenario (weights in pockets - or backpack, or wherever else) than when wearing the weights around the ankles.


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.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

poutanen said:


> 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.


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

BigmountainVMD said:


> That was my bad. Not trying to call you out here, just wanted to hear your opinion.


No worries about that.



BigmountainVMD said:


> 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


----------



## Kauila (Jan 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 9, 2011)

hktrdr said:


> 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?


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

BigmountainVMD said:


> 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!



hktrdr said:


> 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:


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

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!


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

snowklinger said:


> 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!


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

BigmountainVMD said:


> 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.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

poutanen said:


> 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.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

poutanen said:


> 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


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

david_z said:


> 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


Yeah I'm 5'7" and ride a 21.25" stance! :blink: And I'm a wuss so no jibs for me, just jumps. I need all the help I can get for pulling off spins! :yahoo:


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

poutanen said:


> 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.


Totally agree with that - but, as you said it is a completely different point. And you are slightly incorrect that it is about the center of gravity - what matters is the axis of rotation.
The ankle weights will make spinning much more difficult, because they are further away from the axis of rotation which (unless you are doing inverts or corks) generally is line with your spine. The vertical positioning (board level, chest level) does not really matter.
To make the suggested experiment with the weights relevant, the weights would have to be either i) moved in from the ankles, closer to the center of the board (roughly in hip width) or ii) further out from the hoodie pockets or backpack. I contend that if you did that the vertical positioning of the weights (board level vs. chest level) would not affect spin performance.



poutanen said:


> 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:


Completely agree with David's response to this - it is pretty much accepted that a very wide stance reduces the ability to spin and pivot the board.


----------



## aiidoneus (Apr 7, 2011)

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


----------



## dewy (Feb 14, 2013)

poutanen said:


> 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.


when i started reading this this thread, that was exactly my first thought. my own opinion weight is a factor that should be in most of snowboarding specs. for example if you jump with normal shoes, you would wear out slower, jump higher and with more snap compare to jumping with 5kg lead shoes as it requires move force to move. if you move that 5kg to your backpack, yes it would affect the you jump but you will still get your legs up higher and quicker. i'm trying to say being light is the best thing either, you need the weight gain speed down a slope, the inertia to get you further in a jump. in the end it comes down to weight management and basic newtons law of motion 

also the weight of the equipment is also a BIG factor in travelling, unless you like paying excess baggage fees :cheeky4:


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

dewy said:


> also the weight of the equipment is also a BIG factor in travelling, unless you like paying excess baggage fees :cheeky4:


Nope. The difference between different boards and bindings (boots less so) is so small that it is pretty much negligible for travel weight - that is much more driven how much other gear you bring or even the weight of the (empty) luggage itself.

Check this thread: Out of almost 20 users, only 1 had a board-binding combo that did not fall in the 10-12lbs bracket.


----------



## poutanen (Dec 22, 2011)

hktrdr said:


> Check this thread: Out of almost 20 users, only 1 had a board-binding combo that did not fall in the 10-12lbs bracket.


Yeah I think I remember replying to that thread! I think every board/binding combo I've weighed so far has fallen between that 10-12 pound mark. That's everything from a 1995 Kemper Freestyle 153, to a 149 K2 womens board, to a 160 cm "Fucking Light Project" with Diode bindings...


----------



## hktrdr (Apr 3, 2012)

poutanen said:


> Yeah I think I remember replying to that thread! I think every board/binding combo I've weighed so far has fallen between that 10-12 pound mark. That's everything from a 1995 Kemper Freestyle 153, to a 149 K2 womens board, to a 160 cm "Fucking Light Project" with Diode bindings...


Yup, indeed. A couple of my set-ups just scrape in below 10lbs (say, a 155 Cobra with Union Metafuses comes in somewhere around 9.5lbs - with a pair of Burton bindings it is just above 10lbs), but it makes fuck all of a difference.


----------



## dewy (Feb 14, 2013)

hktrdr said:


> Nope. The difference between different boards and bindings (boots less so) is so small that it is pretty much negligible for travel weight - that is much more driven how much other gear you bring or even the weight of the (empty) luggage itself.
> 
> Check this thread: Out of almost 20 users, only 1 had a board-binding combo that did not fall in the 10-12lbs bracket.


Thanks hktrdr for the tread link. sorry what i was meaning was the weight of all the equipment including outerwear, googles, helmet, etc... just to me i consider all that equipment. After travelling for work and paying $500 in excess (long story) i've learnt every kilo counts


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

poutanen said:


> I'm about 15 pounds heavier this year than when I finished last year (beer addiction!)... If I were to add 15 pounds to my board/boots/bindings I think it'd be almost unrideable!


Same here. Not the beer addiction, it's actually take-out on account of never having enough desire to grocery shop after snowboarding all day.

2 season's ago I would flux between 175-180. I'm up to 187 now and I can def feel it affecting my snowboarding. I think the 1lb. difference in a set up is insignificant compared to being 5-10lbs. heavier weight-wise.


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

Not to mention you can add not only weight loss and gain but also strength gain (and loss). Just a little stronger noodle arms will make that board and bindings seems less heavy. :laugh:


----------



## karkis (Jan 8, 2013)

poutanen said:


> 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:


gotta disagree... wider stance allows more force to be put into the rotation, and if you need to spin faster you can orient your board, while in the air, closer to your spin axis, rocket / mute / tail grabs


----------



## GonzoEatsFish (Feb 26, 2020)

BigmountainVMD said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


I found ur link because of very disparity that some boards are 9- 15 lbs.. I think 6 lbs is a very big deal.. bindings and boots still aside. ..

Skinning, jumping, glading, piste, ungroomed.. weights will all perform very differently.


----------

