Reebok Lies about stick weights?

[Leafsrule16 5]

I coudlnt help but notice the s17 was quoted at being 472 grams the kronik weighing 467 and the vapor 40 weighing 458 among others. If true, whats up with all the sticks being way over what they claim/feel? Ive been using composite sticks since the were first weighted, a 450 gram original synergy does not weigh less then a se im sure of it, also if a se weighs over 450 then easton and other manufactures must have been lieing about stick weights since the beginning. Or reebok spewing more marketing hype and taking it too far .. which one is it? Did someone ever weigh an of the sticks in question? If so, was it right? Not that its a big deal, i was just curious.

[gerbe3:16 19]

I'm not one to cause trouble but I don't get it.

You state they are "liers" as a matter of fact and then ask if anyone has ever weighed these sticks and if the data is correct? That's kind of all over the place. No?

[automorph 0]

they might weigh competitor's sticks extra length + wood plug ext and use smallest rbk retail.....

[Leafsrule16 5]

I'm not one to cause trouble but I don't get it.

You state they are "liers" as a matter of fact and then ask if anyone has ever weighed these sticks and if the data is correct? That's kind of all over the place. No?

Someones lieing, a s17 says it weighs 410, a kronik says it weighs 420, the se weighs 415 maybe? The weights are way off whats printed on the actual sticks.

[SolarWind 23]

for what it's worth I have just weighted a brand new uncut XXXX (P91, 87 flex) on a scale that is supposedly fairly accurate - it came out as 466.4 g

[greech 4]

IIRC, I thought someone said MFG's use the cut-down, average size of their lowest flex Sr. stick to determine the weight of it.

[sabres48 0]

First off grams isnt a measurement of weight. The MASSes listed on most sticks are after you cut them three inches or something like that. If you noticed on the s17 when you buy a 100 flex for example, the 100 flex mark on the buttend is about 3 inches down the shaft, requiring you to cut it for the stick to indeed be 100 flex. So is easton lying when they say a 100 flex S17 has a mass of 415 grams? No because if you dont cut the stick it will be a 105 flex (or something in that area) and they didnt list the mass of a 105 flex s17, only the cut down 100 flex.

[SolarWind 23]

First off grams isnt a measurement of weight. The MASSes listed on most sticks are after you cut them three inches or something like that. If you noticed on the s17 when you buy a 100 flex for example, the 100 flex mark on the buttend is about 3 inches down the shaft, requiring you to cut it for the stick to indeed be 100 flex. So is easton lying when they say a 100 flex S17 has a mass of 415 grams? No because if you dont cut the stick it will be a 105 flex (or something in that area) and they didnt list the mass of a 105 flex s17, only the cut down 100 flex.

seems like you've got this backwards - obviously cutting the stick reduces the lever & so increases the flex

so if you buy an 87 flex stick, then when you cut it ~ 2 inches it'd become ~100 flex.

so manufacturers don't mark flex on stick & expect people to cut it - they mark it for the stick as is.

[kovalchuk71 212]

Last time I checked, grams were a measurement of weight. KG, G, MG?

[K9 Unit 1]

First off grams isnt a measurement of weight. The MASSes listed on most sticks are after you cut them three inches or something like that. If you noticed on the s17 when you buy a 100 flex for example, the 100 flex mark on the buttend is about 3 inches down the shaft, requiring you to cut it for the stick to indeed be 100 flex. So is easton lying when they say a 100 flex S17 has a mass of 415 grams? No because if you dont cut the stick it will be a 105 flex (or something in that area) and they didnt list the mass of a 105 flex s17, only the cut down 100 flex.

seems like you've got this backwards - obviously cutting the stick reduces the lever & so increases the flex

so if you buy an 87 flex stick, then when you cut it ~ 2 inches it'd become ~100 flex.

so manufacturers don't mark flex on stick & expect people to cut it - they mark it for the stick as is.

no eastons like that...when you buy a 85 flex shaft you have to cut it 2 inches to get it to 85

[Leafsrule16 5]

All easton sticks say ___ grams at standard length, or at least they used to. Cnt stealths all say 410 g at standard length (non grip), and the se's say 415 at standard length, so they would only be lighter when you cut them.

[Chadd 916]

IIRC, I thought someone said MFG's use the cut-down, average size of their lowest flex Sr. stick to determine the weight of it.

Flex has nothing to do with weight. I recall one case where Justin gave us the weights of a mission stick and the weight of the 85 was actually heavier than the 100 flex.

Yes, manufacturers use a stick that is cut below full retail length and the shortest, smallest blade when measuring the weight.

[th6252 25]

Last time I checked, grams were a measurement of weight. KG, G, MG?

you'll need to check again. either that or apparently you haven't taken hs physics yet, or you obviously didn't do very well in it :P .

the above poster is correct. grams, mg, kg are all measurements of mass not weight. weight takes into account gravity.

[kovalchuk71 212]

Not in Physics yet... Whoops.

[sdcopp 1]

Last time I checked, grams were a measurement of weight. KG, G, MG?

you'll need to check again. either that or apparently you haven't taken hs physics yet, or you obviously didn't do very well in it :P .

the above poster is correct. grams, mg, kg are all measurements of mass not weight. weight takes into account gravity.

But for everyday practical purposes they are interchangeable despite the finite scientific distinction that really has no bearing outside of studies of said sciences. If we're worried about measuring weight and mass on say the moon in comparison to the Earth then this argument needs to come up.

Now realistically balance should matter more than the grams listed on a stick. Approximately 453 grams=1 pound, so even the CL at 405 grams is just under 0.9 of a pound, and a heavyweight stick at 500 grams is around 1.1 pounds. If a tenth of a pound is throwing off your game that badly then there are far larger issues, assuming of course the stick has a decent balance to it.

Are manufacturers going to stroke the data to say what they want? In any industry they will.

[furlanitalia 1]

Maybe Olliereebok could weigh in?

[porky45 1]

Maybe Olliereebok could weigh in?

you're good. you're reaaaaaal good. :D

[syko_hockey 0]

the jr easton s17 claims to be 290 grams (no grip version)

[furlanitalia 1]

Wow, there really was no pun intended there. lol

[Jarick 5]

While I'd agree 0.2 pounds wouldn't make or break on most equipment, the thing that might make more of an impact would be a blade heavy stick, since a long hockey stick is acting as a lever and a small change at the blade end would be magnified. That's why pros prefer a stick with the blade fused as low as possible onto the shaft, saving maybe 15-20 grams, but saving it where it counts the most.

I'd say it would be nice to have a chart of the balance points of sticks and all, but honestly most top end sticks feel incredibly light and balanced compared to sticks a few years ago.

[Leafsrule16 5]

IIRC, I thought someone said MFG's use the cut-down, average size of their lowest flex Sr. stick to determine the weight of it.

Flex has nothing to do with weight. I recall one case where Justin gave us the weights of a mission stick and the weight of the 85 was actually heavier than the 100 flex.

Yes, manufacturers use a stick that is cut below full retail length and the shortest, smallest blade when measuring the weight.

Says right almost any eastons "at standard length". I weighed a brand new se i had in my basement, uncut but with a knob on it (not real big, ripped the tape in half at the middle to tape it). It weighed around 430, it says 425 on it. Weighed my 8k 2 piece with a rbk blade and it weighed a little over 430, also weighed a prostock original synergy i had laying around like new and it weighed 475 but it didnt have the weight stamped on it, the blade is a good inch longer then a datsyuk retail.

[Ahriman 1]

Last time I checked, grams were a measurement of weight. KG, G, MG?

you'll need to check again. either that or apparently you haven't taken hs physics yet, or you obviously didn't do very well in it :P .

the above poster is correct. grams, mg, kg are all measurements of mass not weight. weight takes into account gravity.

You say that like he's going to set up a scale on the moon.

[K9 Unit 1]

Last time I checked, grams were a measurement of weight. KG, G, MG?

you'll need to check again. either that or apparently you haven't taken hs physics yet, or you obviously didn't do very well in it :P .

the above poster is correct. grams, mg, kg are all measurements of mass not weight. weight takes into account gravity.

You say that like he's going to set up a scale on the moon.

just stick it in a vacuum or something...i'm a chem guy not a physics though lol :D

[fatwabbit 93]

it depends on the model and length of the stick.. like one of the guys said, RBK could be weighing the smallest and shortest stick they've got...

[Leafsrule16 5]

it depends on the model and length of the stick.. like one of the guys said, RBK could be weighing the smallest and shortest stick they've got...

Yeah but the thing i keep getting back to is where do they get these heavier weighs then what the stick companies claim is there stick weight "at standard length". Not that its a big deal, i was just curious one night. They probably put a wood end plug in them or something which is actually a greasy marketing technique really, taken too far. I never liked reeboks over-hype of there stuff. They try to innovate every aspect of something and sometimes it turns that product to complete crap (9k pants, loved my 8k's, 9k o stick, rocket runner ccm i know, the first u+ skate and stick). There has been some questionable products out of rbk/ccm lately yet have been hyped like they were amazing, i think they need to tone the marketing down. Still not as bad as warrior though .. how i hate warrior.