standardized flexes

[Neo5370 132]

Is there any reason why manufacturers don't come together and decide on a universal flex scale?

It wouldn't give any one company an advantage or anything and it would make shopping a lot easier for us.

I mean, they all have the same size hosels.

Or is it a matter of like product differentiation? Like using a unique scale to be different from other companies?

[Megamandan 0]

Good point, never really thought about it, but with the MSH flex chart everything is cleared up. Besides almost everything is refered back to Easton's scale anyway.

[sdcopp 1]

It actually does vary quite a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer. It would be easier if they did convert to one sizing system, but it probably won't happen.

[goalie39 0]

I love how bauer nike are just "Easton+2", there really is no need, they could have just said 85 and 100

[hockechamp14 0]

I love how bauer nike are just "Easton+2", there really is no need, they could have just said 85 and 100

102 is SO much better than 100...

[jjtt99 0]

I agree with you 100%. And while they're at it, why not make skate sizing more consistent???

I guess having unique measures within a brand keeps consumers loyal to that company because switching is so damn confusing.

I think they got us by the short and curlies.

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

Why would they? Some might prefer the differences. From what I understand, one of the more popular easton pro flexes is 95. Also understand that CCM's regular flex is roughly equivalent to Easton's 95. Since regular stiffs can't get an Easton in a 95 off the rack, perhaps they'd prefer to go with CCM. Also, perhaps some people like a just slightly stiffer stick than a 100, but a 110 is too stiff. So, they go with the Bauer 102, and so forth. Besides, bottom line, is that it'd likely be hard since they all use different materials to come up with uniform flexes. BUT.... that's just my 2 cents....

[jjtt99 0]

Ogie, we're talking about having a consistent scale. That's very different than all sticks and shafts having the same flex.

[top_shelf_24 0]

read his post again. I think he knows ;)

[jjtt99 0]

Okay, what part of this conversation are you guys not getting? Let's use weight as an example:

Stick A, made by company B, weighs X grams.

Stick C, made by company D, also weighs X grams, yet it's a completely different stick. (Or for the sake of this argument it can weigh a different amount.)

The constant factor is the number of grams the stick weighs -- no matter who makes it, or what it is made out of.

That's the point, we want one standard measure to determine flexibility. Each stick can flex differently we just want to use one scale to measure -- just like weight!

Capish?

JJ

[Chadd 916]

They aren't all measured the same way by each manufacturer. If they all used the same process to measure flex, it would be easy to compare the flexes.

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

What he said.

Plus, why are hat sizes measured the way they are? Why are sticks measured in grams instead of ounces? Why are one company's shoes and/or skate sizes different from each other (then again, why aren't skate sizes just listed as shoe sizes in the first place - similar to Mission, and why does Mission differ?). Why is a color called "mercury metalic" if it was painted on a Lexus, and "liquid platinum" if on an Infiniti (when we all know it's just plain silver)? Why does one drive on a parkway, and park on a driveway?..... anyway, I digress....

Regardless, Chad was more eloquent and to the point than I. Each company measures there sticks in a different way. In addition the actual way a stick flexes is different as a result of materials used and the way that they are manufactured. So, it may very well be that the way one measures a flex may not be similar to that of the way another does.

Anyway, I don't think the companies would be able to agree upon the actual "correct" way to measure flex.

Also, and this is JUST a guess, I would think that the CCM's and Bauers of the world may differ and wonder why Easton doesn't use THEIR rating method (ditto with Inno and so forth).

[forsberg91 0]

I agree that they should have a "universal" flex system, but it would hard to do. It would help us when we are buying the sticks though.

[Chadd 916]

I actually prefer the Inno style numbering and the way they come up with the numbers. If I understand correctly, they use a set amount of weight applied to the end of the shaft and measure the distance the shaft bends. They use that number in MM as the flex 260, 240, 180, etc...

[Neo5370 132]

That kinda stuff is interesting................knowing how inno measures flex.

Now this is what I've heard and never asked for an official word. But is it true that the Easton scale is how many pounds of pressure it takes to bend the shaft?

But then again, I never heard how much of a bend.

Anybody know?

[mack 44]

I think it's how much it will take to make it bend 1"

[NuggyBuggy 0]

Plus, why are hat sizes measured the way they are?  Why are sticks measured in grams instead of ounces?  Why are one company's shoes and/or skate sizes different from each other

...

Anyway, I don't think the companies would be able to agree upon the actual "correct" way to measure flex.

If you have a good answer to the questions you pose, beyond "that's just the way it is", let me know. If you've never been annoyed by the fact that you CAN'T just walk into a shoe store knowing that you need size X, without having to try them on, then you're a better man than me. In fact, as I think about it, a better analogy would be that when you go into a shoe store, you have to go and buy a shoe from brand X and wear it for a while to really know whether or not that brand X's size 9 fits you or not. Wouldn't that be annoying ?

And as for whether or not companies couldn't agree on what the correct way is to measure flex, I can't see how that's any different from, say specifying the lie to a stick. While I know there is argument about how to specify a lie, the fact that this very site has a pattern DB which reports lies on a single scale, instead of tossing up ones hands and saying it's impossible, suggests that people ARE interested in having and using a common operational definition. Isn't that valuable in and of itself ?

Though I do not work in the hockey industry, I am suspicious that the answer lies in marketing. If you can force people to go out and and buy your product in order to figure out how to interpret the numbers on it, you've won a major battle. Professionals in the industry please correct me: I suspect a lot of the hockey stick business is about marketing, just look how much attention gets paid to what color the new sticks are in, how nice the graphics are, or who is endorsing what company's sticks. In areas where marketing is paramount, it is rarely to the vendor's advantage to have clearly interpretable performance statistics.

[Chadd 916]

I think it's how much it will take to make it bend 1"

In the middle, I believe.

[Chadd 916]

Plus, why are hat sizes measured the way they are?  Why are sticks measured in grams instead of ounces?  Why are one company's shoes and/or skate sizes different from each other

...

Anyway, I don't think the companies would be able to agree upon the actual "correct" way to measure flex.

If you have a good answer to the questions you pose, beyond "that's just the way it is", let me know. If you've never been annoyed by the fact that you CAN'T just walk into a shoe store knowing that you need size X, without having to try them on, then you're a better man than me. In fact, as I think about it, a better analogy would be that when you go into a shoe store, you have to go and buy a shoe from brand X and wear it for a while to really know whether or not that brand X's size 9 fits you or not. Wouldn't that be annoying ?

And as for whether or not companies couldn't agree on what the correct way is to measure flex, I can't see how that's any different from, say specifying the lie to a stick. While I know there is argument about how to specify a lie, the fact that this very site has a pattern DB which reports lies on a single scale, instead of tossing up ones hands and saying it's impossible, suggests that people ARE interested in having and using a common operational definition. Isn't that valuable in and of itself ?

Though I do not work in the hockey industry, I am suspicious that the answer lies in marketing. If you can force people to go out and and buy your product in order to figure out how to interpret the numbers on it, you've won a major battle. Professionals in the industry please correct me: I suspect a lot of the hockey stick business is about marketing, just look how much attention gets paid to what color the new sticks are in, how nice the graphics are, or who is endorsing what company's sticks. In areas where marketing is paramount, it is rarely to the vendor's advantage to have clearly interpretable performance statistics.

Just like every manufacturer claims to have the lowest kickpoint.

[corry34 0]

I agree with you guys that it can be quite confusing finding equivalent flexes from all the different manufacturers.

At THC we use KP which is the force required in newtons per meter squared to bend the shaft 1". The higher the number the more force required to bend the stick

It may not be the exact system as others, but we find it very important to have a measurable valuable with respect to the flex.