flex and duarbility?

[TBLfan 25]

idk I think it depends on how we are talking about the sticks breaking. If we are talking about it getting crushed against the boards or fallen on I'd have to agree that a whippier stick would have a less likely chance of breaking. But if we're talking about breakage due to shooting I think a whippier stick would break down faster.

[sogaduch 0]

You guys are thinking about this WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much. You think pro's sticks are made using a different technique, different materials, etc. They're not! It's tough to explain, however, if you saw the entire process, there wouldn't be another thread like this on any BB. Not trying to rip on anyone here, but seriously folks, this isn't rocket science or as advanced as many of you may hope.

99% of the OPS made for pro players are done just like a company would make them for retail. The only major difference between a pro and retail stick is that on the pro stick, the blade was probably made using a soft mold instead of a hard mold (all of Warrior's pro & retail molds are hard; only Easton's retail line are hard tooled, thus, any player using those curves at pro would have the same as retail).

The shafts are "baked", usually in multiples of 96, and they usually do these all in the same flex. Warrior is the only company that, on a pro return, you will see the ACTUAL flex rating (they still use the INNO rating system on the stamped flex), as opposed to Easton, Mission, BNH, THC, TPS, etc. because they flex EVERY shaft before the stick is made and mark the flex directly onto the stick (i.e. 263). The other companies will take what they feel is a 100 flex and push it through, whether it is a 97 or a 103.

In my most successful stick sales year at pro (2003-04), I didn't have a single player out of 27 using a "special" shaft. I do know that anytime we made sticks for Brett Hull, we'd manufacture extra shafts and then take the "best ones" with regards to flex.

When I first started working with Hullie, 2000-01, he broke only three shafts all season, one over the boards and the other over a crossbar. Only one stick he called a "legit" breakage.

that is some hardcore proof there from someone with actual facts.

[opus22 0]

im 6'4", 215. ive been playing for over 25 years. i can tell you from only my pov, of course, but to me there is no question that 110 lasts longer than anything ive used. i have an old zcore 110 and an old original ultra lite in 110 - i have nothing else older than 6 months. its not like they sat in the closet either, i used the zcore for a year and a half before lending it to a buddy who is my size and a stick swinging dman. he gave it back two weeks ago after 4 years. he doesnt have time to play anymore and felt guilty. he said it was the strongest most durable stick he ever had. it looks the same as the day i gave it to him....four years ago. i bought 2 syn 2 shafts on ebay for a good price and broke them both in a month in a half. 100 flex. i ran out of shafts and went back to my old 110 ultra lite, which ive used on and off for 5 years - stuck a heatley st blade in it, and ive been using it 2-3 times a week for over a month and a half. the shaft is as strong as ever, and the blade barely has a mark...when a focus flex or syn2 blade would be flaking on the top of the blade.

ive been told from hockey reps they get flex ratings based off how much weight the shaft can take before it snaps. if there is any truth to that then by definition the 110 is more durable. i always prefered 100 for a little snap, but ive really gotten used to the 110 and the durability makes it an obvious choice for me.

[tsanga 0]

No idea.  But it would seem like the less movement on something the less chance of it breaking.  I.E. Stiffer last longer.

The more brittle, the better chance in breakage. Like I said in my previous post, I saw it first hand. The stiffer sticks/shafts do not last longer.

But stiffer doesn't necessarily mean more brittle. Stiffer, from a mechanics standpoint, is just stronger.

[JR Boucicaut 3810]

im 6'4", 215. ive been playing for over 25 years. i can tell you from only my pov, of course, but to me there is no question that 110 lasts longer than anything ive used. i have an old zcore 110 and an old original ultra lite in 110 - i have nothing else older than 6 months. its not like they sat in the closet either, i used the zcore for a year and a half before lending it to a buddy who is my size and a stick swinging dman. he gave it back two weeks ago after 4 years. he doesnt have time to play anymore and felt guilty. he said it was the strongest most durable stick he ever had. it looks the same as the day i gave it to him....four years ago. i bought 2 syn 2 shafts on ebay for a good price and broke them both in a month in a half. 100 flex. i ran out of shafts and went back to my old 110 ultra lite, which ive used on and off for 5 years - stuck a heatley st blade in it, and ive been using it 2-3 times a week for over a month and a half. the shaft is as strong as ever, and the blade barely has a mark...when a focus flex or syn2 blade would be flaking on the top of the blade.

ive been told from hockey reps they get flex ratings based off how much weight the shaft can take before it snaps. if there is any truth to that then by definition the 110 is more durable. i always prefered 100 for a little snap, but ive really gotten used to the 110 and the durability makes it an obvious choice for me.

My God, why is it so hard to understand?

Actually, your flex rating is how many lb/pressure it takes to bow the stick one inch. If a stick is stiffer, it will take more lb/pressure to bend it, but once it it bent, it won't bend much. That is WHY it is more brittle.

[jimmy 194]

For those of you who know the stick manufacturing process, please tell us what goes into the making of different flex's? Does a 65lb flex have less material (carbon/aramid, etc) in the side wall of the stick in a certain area to make it flex easier, than say the same model stick with a 110lb flex?

[rugdnit 0]

ive been told from hockey reps they get flex ratings based off how much weight the shaft can take before it snaps.

And this proves my theory that 99% of reps don't know shit...statements like this.

that is why i feel bad for alot of the lacrosse guys that now have to sell hockey sticks...hehehehe!

[tsanga 0]

Actually, your flex rating is how many lb/pressure it takes to bow the stick one inch.  If a stick is stiffer, it will take more lb/pressure to bend it, but once it it bent, it won't bend much.  That is WHY it is more brittle.

It's time for an intervention from a mechanical engineer.

Elasticity:

An elastic material returns to its original length (or shape) when any load is removed. A plastic material distorts easily but does not break. Hockey sticks are designed to flex elastically.

Strength:

A strong material is one with a high breaking stress - i.e. a high tensile stress is needed to break it. A weak material is one with a low breaking stress.

Stiffness:

A stiff material needs a large force (tensile stress) to produce a small extension (tensile strain) - it is difficult to change its shape or bend it. A flexible material only needs a small stress to produce a large extension - it is not difficult to change its shape.

Plasticity:

Plasticity is the ability of a material to deform permanently without breaking or rupturing. This property is the opposite of strength. This is not a desirable quality for hockey sticks.

Toughness:

Toughness is the property that enables a material to withstand shock and to be deformed without rupturing. Toughness may be considered as a combination of strength and plasticity.

Brittleness:

Brittleness is the opposite of the property of plasticity. A brittle material is one that breaks or shatters before it deforms. Carbon fiber is of this quality. Generally, brittle metals are high in compressive strength but low in tensile strength. A hockey stick made of 100% carbon fiber (graphite) would be brittle, but a stick also needs to perform under high tensile loads - so carbon fiber is commonly reinforced with Kevlar, Aramid or fiberglass. Brittleness generally describes the resistance to shattering upon impact, so a hockey stick is not considered brittle.

So strong and stiff are desirable qualities of a hockey stick, but the stiffness has to be adapted to the player's ability to load the stick elastically. In addition, the stick must resist fatigue (leading to breakage) under the same repeated elastic loading over time to make it durable.

All these qualities are somewhat independent and they are not necessarily related; meaning through a combination of material selection and manufacturing techniques one can have a stick that's strong but brittle, flexible but weak, stiff but weak, flexible but brittle, etc. So a 65 flex stick can be more or less brittle than a 110 flex, and it could also be more or less strong than a 110 flex. The only thing for sure is that a 65 flex stick is less stiff than the 110 flex. What's more, all these qualities are affected by temperature. Materials generally get stiffer when they get colder, and plastics get more brittle when they get colder.

The bottom line is we don't know anything about the proprietary material formulations or the manufacturing details so we can only guess. And I doubt that anybody is ready to divulge any of their shaft manufacturing secrets on a public forum - otherwise we could all go into business!

ADDENDUM: Stiffer sticks are claimed to be more durable because often a player isn't strong enough to flex them to their yield point.

[rugdnit 0]

that is why i feel bad for alot of the lacrosse guys that now have to sell hockey sticks...hehehehe!

Why feel bad? They should learn about the sport and the product they are selling since they are now making a nicer living selling hockey equipment.

you're right.....i don't feel bad them.....i liked them so much better when they were Innovative. the only thing i can say is that it is nice to see that they got some money so they can give Easton a run. i was getting tired of seeing them choke everybody out just because they have money. back to the point- everybody should use a flex that suits your style of game. 110's are not all that- not even close. i see all kinds of sticks break and they break mainly due to slashing and whacking which is BUSH league anyway. MOST of the guys that use 110 flexes put too much energy into the ice reather than the puck- but then with that little of flex you have to drive the snot out of the ice to get some sort of flex. like i said earlier- the majority of the flexes in pro hockey are 85-95. stiffer is not better or more durable. if anything they do not flex as much and they are not being used to their full potential ( ie: driving a porsche in bumper to bumper traffic ) so there is less striation of the materials so they take longer to break down. why is everybody so concerned with a stick that lasts forever? if car and motorcycle racers bought tires with that mentality they would not be able to hit the insane speeds that they hit. performance equals money- that is just the way it is the more that technology enters the game. the good ol' days are over and as much as hockey players hate to change you face up. look at it from a PERFORMANCE standpoint. goals/assists = $$$

[rugdnit 0]

ADDENDUM: Stiffer sticks are claimed to be more durable because often a player isn't strong enough to flex them to their yield point.

which is exactly what i was trying to get at! great point/wording- THANK YOU!

[Guy Incognito 0]

ADDENDUM: Stiffer sticks are claimed to be more durable because often a player isn't strong enough to flex them to their yield point.

So if you are strong enough (6'4", 275 with good+ strength) it may not be a good idea to get a stiffy?

[rugdnit 0]

ADDENDUM: Stiffer sticks are claimed to be more durable because often a player isn't strong enough to flex them to their yield point.

So if you are strong enough (6'4", 275 with good+ strength) it may not be a good idea to get a stiffy?

in a lockerroom with other guys.....ummmm NO. however for a guy your size ( from the waist up imagine ie: Fletch ) a 110 flex may be commensurate with your skill / strength.

[TBLfan 25]

I think it is all based on how strong your hands are and the type of game you play. Most players in the NHL use a stick with a flex rating of 85-95(according to tsanga), most of those players also rely heavily on their wrist shots. If you take a lot of wrist shots and don't really use your slap shot(unless your last name is hull) then you should probably get a lower flex rating. One issue with a lower flex rating is that your shot takes a bit longer to get off due to the amount of flex, there's a slightly(very slight) lag in your shot. With a stiffer flex your wrister might be a little slower but the lag is also shorter.

In most cases your stick will break because of slashes before you wear it down from repeated flexes.

[tsanga 0]

Most players in the NHL use a stick with a flex rating of 85-95(according to tsanga)

rugdnit said it, not me :P

[rugdnit 0]

I think it is all based on how strong your hands are and the type of game you play. Most players in the NHL use a stick with a flex rating of 85-95(according to tsanga), most of those players also rely heavily on their wrist shots. If you take a lot of wrist shots and don't really use your slap shot(unless your last name is hull) then you should probably get a lower flex rating. One issue with a lower flex rating is that your shot takes a bit longer to get off due to the amount of flex, there's a slightly(very slight) lag in your shot. With a stiffer flex your wrister might be a little slower but the lag is also shorter.

In most cases your stick will break because of slashes before you wear it down from repeated flexes.

i would agree somewhat in the lag with a softer flex... HOWEVER while you are reach for the moon for your windup you are giving the goalie time to set up. like i said earlier- this is not golf where you can take your time to wind up.... hockey is a speed game and while moving, off balance, getting knocked down you can get a better shot off with a softer flex. as fast as the game is now this is where the technology is at and that FACT that the pros are using softer flexes is proof positive of this. a slapshot taken from the waist and lower will typically hit the back of the net faster than one taken after you point your stick at the moon.

[TBLfan 25]

agreed, somewhat... Personally I go a little over waist high, if I go any higher my balance is thrown off.

But back to what I mean by the lag. I meant that when you shoot with a stiff flex your stick doesn't flex as much so it takes less time before it leaves your blade. When you have a soft flex your loading your stick with flex then it's released. This gives you a bit of lag, actually enought that sometimes a goalie that wouldn't quite be down in the butterfly has time to do so.

I think it's all about finding a middle ground where your release is fast and your able to use the stick flex as an advantage.

[jimmy 194]

For those of you who know the stick manufacturing process, please tell us what goes into the making of different flex's?  Does a 65lb flex have less material (carbon/aramid, etc) in the side wall of the stick in a certain area to make it flex easier, than say the same model stick with a 110lb flex?

Come on jimmy...ya don't expect us to give out all of the secrets...do ya? :D

Why not??? These boards are for free info aren't they? ;) Don't worry I have no desire to make sticks!

Actually you can answer it in vauge terms. What I'm trying to extract is... that if something is whippier than something that is stiff, it has to be made different. Does that difference make it weaker. tsanga seemed to answer some of what I was asking.

[Chadd 916]

For those of you who know the stick manufacturing process, please tell us what goes into the making of different flex's?  Does a 65lb flex have less material (carbon/aramid, etc) in the side wall of the stick in a certain area to make it flex easier, than say the same model stick with a 110lb flex?

Come on jimmy...ya don't expect us to give out all of the secrets...do ya? :D

Why not??? These boards are for free info aren't they? ;) Don't worry I have no desire to make sticks!

Actually you can answer it in vauge terms. What I'm trying to extract is... that if something is whippier than something that is stiff, it has to be made different. Does that difference make it weaker. tsanga seemed to answer some of what I was asking.

At one point I was told that different flexes in senior sticks were accomplished by changing time and temp when baking the sticks as well as some slight variations in materials. I didn't ask for anything more specific than that. If I recall correctly, the 85 flex L2s were very slightly heavier than the 100s, though I may be thinking of the wrong stick.

[Guy Incognito 0]

I must say that this is one of the most intriguing conversations I've read in a while concerning hockey equipment. At least it's not "What skates should I get, the NBH 190 or the NBH 190?" :D

[rugdnit 0]

" YOU DO WHAT YOU DO.......AND I DO WHAT I DO!!!! " LOL

TBL-- i actually understood your point from word one and i understand shot mechanics from an equipment standpoint and a player standpoint much better than most. shot release and shot mechanics are pretty straightforward. most guys have no clue- they just grip it and rip it. which is fine because some jocks could burn a small planet while thinking about it. there is a slight lag with a whippy shaft and that is why some companies are better at the whippy stuff as they pop or snap back faster. some guys use a shorter pattern to help with quick release- the shorter the blade the quicker the release ( everything is a trade off ). the XN10 had great pops, but durability was bad. Innovative has their lowkick technology and while old is still one of the best. over time sure.... they will lose some snap..... but that goes back to my performance = $$$ statement. when the shaft goes dead.... buy a new one. the original point of the thread was which lasts longer- stiff or whippy??? well this goes back to my statement about car and motorcycle racing. if they bought tires with the mentality that they should last the longest then you are going to lose performance. this statement is a fact and it translates to hockey now as well since the mfgs have all stepped up the technology. i think it is good that we don't all use the same thing out there. it takes all kinds off players to make a TEAM. it makes me sick when i see the stat geeks upset over signing guys that don't score alot of goals for above avg money in pro hockey. some players contribute so much more than goals and you cannot measure their success with goals. guys on the point typically have a second more to wind up and they need a HEAVY shot rather than a quick release so sure they might use a stiffer stick. i know alot of defenceman that vary- alot of them will agree that they know that when the goalie sees the stick come up that A he has time to get ready and that B a shot IS coming. a quick flinch of the wrists through traffic and the goalie has no clue what is coming ( he may make the first save if it hits him, but then there is the rebound ). one of the things about hockey that makes it exciting is the element of surprise. whether it is a quick shot or a great stretch pass that noboby saw coming ( except a shifty winger and dman with great passing ability ). we could go round after round on this one, but the facts have been stated in some of the responses- the rest is all personal opinion and preference.

[opus22 0]

like i said im a big guy, and i think that the stiff flex is fine. i dont take slap shots really - mostly snaps and wrists. i understand the concept of drag, and more flex helping those shots and i agree - but to a point. i found once i got used to a stiffer flex, my release was actually quicker. it reminds me of when i grew up using woodies. the brand new woodie always shot great, and broke in nice for a few days. in time, the flex would increase and i found that it became easier to be accurate and get a real comfortable snap with it - i loved it. the first thing noticed when i got a new stick was how much more ooomph my shot had. you can tell me till the cows come home that my two 110's are brittle and likely to shatter, but like i said they've been around for over 5 years each - and ive buried a dozen 100 flex's in that time. i can go back and forth on which flex helps my shot more, but i find i shoot well with both once im used to it - and there is nop doubt to me that the 110's have lasted longer.

[rugdnit 0]

like i said im a big guy, and i think that the stiff flex is fine. i dont take slap shots really - mostly snaps and wrists. i understand the concept of drag, and more flex helping those shots and i agree - but to a point. i found once i got used to a stiffer flex, my release was actually quicker. it reminds me of when i grew up using woodies. the brand new woodie always shot great, and broke in nice for a few days. in time, the flex would increase and i found that it became easier to be accurate and get a real comfortable snap with it - i loved it. the first thing noticed when i got a new stick was how much more ooomph my shot had. you can tell me till the cows come home that my two 110's are brittle and likely to shatter, but like i said they've been around for over 5 years each - and ive buried a dozen 100 flex's in that time. i can go back and forth on which flex helps my shot more, but i find i shoot well with both once im used to it - and there is nop doubt to me that the 110's have lasted longer.

which reinforces the tire theory. like i said... the facts have been stated. they are not debatable since they are FACTS. the rest are all personal preferance and opinion. the fact that i had to repeat the statement multiple times is proof. i wanted to thank the guys that broke it down from an engineering standpoint- that took alot of time to write. i can see why the people that really know don't contribute- it takes too long to write and for someone that does not know or agree to drop 5 or less sentences disputing everything. it's like the guys who jump in on arguments only to make more arguments..." yeah... but what IF.... yea but what IF... yeah but IF " while offering no real information or relevant statment other than well i have had this shaft for 5 or 10 years and it still rocks. IF grandma had balls she'd be GRANDPA!!!! to oeahc his own and to those who GET IT thank you!

[ktang 34]

im 6'4", 215. ive been playing for over 25 years. i can tell you from only my pov, of course, but to me there is no question that 110 lasts longer than anything ive used. i have an old zcore 110 and an old original ultra lite in 110 - i have nothing else older than 6 months. its not like they sat in the closet either, i used the zcore for a year and a half before lending it to a buddy who is my size and a stick swinging dman. he gave it back two weeks ago after 4 years. he doesnt have time to play anymore and felt guilty. he said it was the strongest most durable stick he ever had. it looks the same as the day i gave it to him....four years ago. i bought 2 syn 2 shafts on ebay for a good price and broke them both in a month in a half. 100 flex. i ran out of shafts and went back to my old 110 ultra lite, which ive used on and off for 5 years - stuck a heatley st blade in it, and ive been using it 2-3 times a week for over a month and a half. the shaft is as strong as ever, and the blade barely has a mark...when a focus flex or syn2 blade would be flaking on the top of the blade.

ive been told from hockey reps they get flex ratings based off how much weight the shaft can take before it snaps. if there is any truth to that then by definition the 110 is more durable. i always prefered 100 for a little snap, but ive really gotten used to the 110 and the durability makes it an obvious choice for me.

I think the differences in your shafts was the models, not the flex. The Ultra Lites had a kevlar weave on the outside, and the Zcore was graphite wrapped around an aluminum core (I think), and both are much tougher than the Synthesis 2s.

[tsanga 0]

I meant that when you shoot with a stiff flex your stick doesn't flex as much so it takes less time before it leaves your blade. When you have a soft flex your loading your stick with flex then it's released. This gives you a bit of lag, actually enought that sometimes a goalie that wouldn't quite be down in the butterfly has time to do so.

I think it's all about finding a middle ground where your release is fast and your able to use the stick flex as an advantage.

This comment brings up an interesting point.

Spring force loaded in shaft (F) = stiffness constant (k) * displacement (x)

Unloaded force from shaft (F) = mass of puck (m) * acceleration (a)

So the higher the loaded spring energy in the shaft, the harder the shot (higher acceleration). This is a simplistic way of looking at it, because there's a transient effect as well where you want to maximize the time a puck spends on the blade during release to maximize acceleration from the recoil energy of the shaft.

A stiffer shaft just has a higher stiffness constant k. But that doesn't automatically translate to a harder or softer shot. You can flex a stiffer shaft less than a regular shaft and achieve the same shot acceleration. This is why unless you are strong enough to flex a stiffer shaft as much as a regular shaft, you will not realize any benefit from it. But if you are strong enough to flex a stiffer shaft the same amount, your shot will be harder. Your strength, when applied to a regular shaft, will have to flex that even more if you want to achieve the same hard shot, but if that regular shaft wasn't designed to handle that increased amount of bending repeatedly, it would break more easily.

I always thought it was best to use the stiffest shaft you can flex with ease and regularity to maximize shot acceleration. How much flex you want to "feel" to get that shot acceleration becomes a matter of personal preference. But to get the best shot you have to balance your strength to bend a shaft and the time the puck spends on the blade during release.

[opus22 0]

like i said im a big guy, and i think that the stiff flex is fine. i dont take slap shots really - mostly snaps and wrists. i understand the concept of drag, and more flex helping those shots and i agree - but to a point. i found once i got used to a stiffer flex, my release was actually quicker. it reminds me of when i grew up using woodies. the brand new woodie always shot great, and broke in nice for a few days. in time, the flex would increase and i found that it became easier to be accurate and get a real comfortable snap with it -  i loved it. the first thing noticed when i got a new stick was how much more ooomph my shot had. you can tell me till the cows come home that my two 110's are brittle and likely to shatter, but like i said they've been around for over 5 years each - and ive buried a dozen 100 flex's in that time. i can go back and forth on which flex helps my shot more, but i find i shoot well with both once im used to it - and there is nop doubt to me that the 110's have lasted longer.

which reinforces the tire theory. like i said... the facts have been stated. they are not debatable since they are FACTS. the rest are all personal preferance and opinion. the fact that i had to repeat the statement multiple times is proof. i wanted to thank the guys that broke it down from an engineering standpoint- that took alot of time to write. i can see why the people that really know don't contribute- it takes too long to write and for someone that does not know or agree to drop 5 or less sentences disputing everything. it's like the guys who jump in on arguments only to make more arguments..." yeah... but what IF.... yea but what IF... yeah but IF " while offering no real information or relevant statment other than well i have had this shaft for 5 or 10 years and it still rocks. IF grandma had balls she'd be GRANDPA!!!! to oeahc his own and to those who GET IT thank you!

sorry if i crossed your line somewhere. to me the proof is what im using tonight -and from my 28 years of experience being a player/coach/ref/rink manager/rinkrat and general fan of the game. ive seen it play out for years. i know guys who are my size and have bombs of shots - one guy in particular who is a narch d1/pro player who has to use 110 ultra lites because everything else in 100 breaks within a week. ive seen him do it - thats how hard he shoots. its just the way they worked out - he prefered 100's, but couldnt get any to last. he has to use 110's, and they work for him. you cant tell me his 100's were more durable. his experiences reflect my own, thats the only way i can look at it.