The Truth about the Easton Stealth

[Modo9 0]

The Numbers Don't Lie All right, I finally got around to measuring the shaft circumference of an Easton Stealth vs. a standard 2004 Synergy. I measured both sticks smack dab in the middle, and the result is: The Stealth is 1/8 of an inch thinner than a standard synergy. Hmmm . . . I also measured both sticks at the top of the shaft and the results were exactly the same (the Stealth does not have a taper at the top of the shaft.)

Using the Industry Standard Length of 57", multiplied by .125 (1/8 of an inch) total circumference peeled off the Synergy to get the Stealth is 7.125 inches, which is 12.5% of the shaft. Thus when you reduce the weight of a 455 gram Synergy by 12.5% you get a 398.125 gram Stealth. Take away all the BS marketing of manipulating materials, and fancy hocus-pocus. All Easton did was shrink the Synergy and Voila we have a 395 gram Stealth.

The Numbers Do Lie Well over half the people I know who own Stealth's have broken it well within the first month. So where does Easton get off putting a 9/10 Durability on the Stick? They made a thinner, slimmer Synergy with a longer taper. Aside from a made up technology called Therma-Tec, what proof does Easton offer that a skinnier, thinner, lighter version of the Synergy could be more durable? Just cause marketing told production to paint a 9/10 on the shaft. Where does that number even come from? Marketing's imagination, that is where. It's made up. From what I have seen of the Stealth Durability should be 4/10. And any credible engineer will tell you as a rule of thumb, when performance increases, you compromise durability. And in this case the only way performance was increased by making a slimmer lighter version. It's an insult to anyone who knows anything about hockey equipment for Easton to put a 9/10 Durability Rating on a Stealth Stick.

[Fonya 0]

Nice research man..

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

The Numbers Don't Lie All right, I finally got around to measuring the shaft circumference of an Easton Stealth vs. a standard 2004 Synergy. I measured both sticks smack dab in the middle, and the result is: The Stealth is 1/8 of an inch thinner than a standard synergy. Hmmm . . . I also measured both sticks at the top of the shaft and the results were exactly the same (the Stealth does not have a taper at the top of the shaft.)

Using the Industry Standard Length of 57", multiplied by .125 (1/8 of an inch) total circumference peeled off the Synergy to get the Stealth is 7.125 inches, which is 12.5% of the shaft. Thus when you reduce the weight of a 455 gram Synergy by 12.5% you get a 398.125 gram Stealth. Take away all the BS marketing of manipulating materials, and fancy hocus-pocus. All Easton did was shrink the Synergy and Voila we have a 395 gram Stealth.

The Numbers Do Lie Well over half the people I know who own Stealth's have broken it well within the first month. So where does Easton get off putting a 9/10 Durability on the Stick? They made a thinner, slimmer Synergy with a longer taper. Aside from a made up technology called Therma-Tec, what proof does Easton offer that a skinnier, thinner, lighter version of the Synergy could be more durable? Just cause marketing told production to paint a 9/10 on the shaft. Where does that number even come from? Marketing's imagination, that is where. It's made up. From what I have seen of the Stealth Durability should be 4/10. And any credible engineer will tell you as a rule of thumb, when performance increases, you compromise durability. And in this case the only way performance was increased by making a slimmer lighter version. It's an insult to anyone who knows anything about hockey equipment for Easton to put a 9/10 Durability Rating on a Stealth Stick.

You should see the ones that got an 8 rating. Bubble wrap has been known to break those if wrapped too tightly in shipping. It's called the Easton Octane factor.

[Dan_The_Man_16 0]

Ryan/Easton, you got 'splain' to do.

[Modo9 0]

Nice research man..

Thanks. I just used a tape measure and a calculator, and an undying hatred toward Corporate Marketing Departments that constantly pull things out of their but.

[cbettner66 0]

i think u have a good point modo - but could you make it just a little less obvious that u hate easton?

im neither for them or against them - but it seems like u enjoy ripping them a new one

[Gee12 0]

That puts my mind off to buy a Stealth

Good job..

[cbettner66 0]

i was watching some old penguins hockey the other day - back when everyone used wooden sticks - and i was suprised - i dont think one person broke a stick the entire game - now it seems like whenever you put that "little extra" into a shot the stick snaps - and its always at the worst possible times - go figure....

i hope they fix this durability problem

[Modo9 0]

Ryan/Easton, you got 'splain' to do.

If you are going to put a 9/10 durbaility rating on Anything, you better back it up.

Things I would put a 9/10 rating on:

TPS Rubber Response

1979 Nova

Matchbox cars

Things I wouldn't put a 9/10 rating on:

An Easton Stealth

[Cavs019 708]

Interesting, but still, a stick is a stick, the stealth and SL's ive had have held up great and the thin shaft works better for me than if I were to use a 75 flex. To each his own.

[Modo9 0]

i think u have a good point modo - but could you make it just a little less obvious that u hate easton?

im neither for them or against them - but it seems like u enjoy ripping them a new one

I have two pairs of Easton Air SBX, and I am currently using a Stealth Grip. Easton makes great products, I give a lot of Kudo's to their Research and Development team and Engineers. But what really bugs me is the blatent lies Marketing spews to make sure sales stay up.

If you caught the Easton engineers on coffee break and asked them if the Stealth was built for durability, they'd fall over laughing. If you asked them what Therma-tec is, they'd probably tell you they bake the sticks to solidy the composition of the materials--which will make it slightly more sturdy, but it's nothing revolutionary.

Easton is a fantastic company, I just wish the're Marketing Department didn't feel such a strong need to Make Stuff Up in order to Sell a Product. They should really just try and tell the truth for once. They should just say, "Hey, the Stealth is a leaner, skinnier, sexier version of the Synergy. However with increased performance durability is not as good, so we are offering 60 day warantee's on Stealth." In all honesty, Easton has no business putting a durability rating on their product without any written proof to publicly show for it.

[Modo22 0]

although i think you have alot of time on your hands....you make a great point. If they are going to advertise something new and better, they should be able to back it up! And a Stealth will not be added to my collection any time soon...

[Modo9 0]

although i think you have alot of time on your hands....you make a great point. If they are going to advertise something new and better, they should be able to back it up! And a Stealth will not be added to my collection any time soon...

I don't have a lot of time. I am talking on the phone with customers as I write this. I just have a thing for hockey equipment, and I think hockey consumers have a right to know all the facts and truth about a product.

[Cavs019 708]

The question you have to ask yourself is, "Does easton really care about anything other than maximizing their profits?" Sure the reality of the situation is that its a longer, lighter, thinner synergy, but admiting that doesn't equate to consumer hype and "justification" of a $200 USD price tag.

[Modo9 0]

The question you have to ask yourself is, "Does easton really care about anything other than maximizing their profits?" Sure the reality of the situation is that its a longer, lighter, thinner synergy, but admiting that doesn't equate to consumer hype and "justification" of a $200 USD price tag.

I think Easton cares about hockey and being the leader of the OPC market. I think with the increased competition from TPS, RBK and Bauer they've resorted to out-right lies to sell their product. Sad.

[Kobe 0]

i was watching some old penguins hockey the other day - back when everyone used wooden sticks - and i was suprised - i dont think one person broke a stick the entire game - now it seems like whenever you put that "little extra" into a shot the stick snaps - and its always at the worst possible times - go figure....

i hope they fix this durability problem

People broke wood sticks like crazy back in the day. You just didn't see it on the ice. When wood sticks break/crack, the player can feel and usually see the damage that's done. With the composite sticks, you will not know that their strength has been compromised until it is too late and the thing snaps in half. In reality, players broke much more wood sticks back in the day vs. the players today with their composite sticks. If the wood sticks didn't snap, they surely would get soft after a period and a half of one-timers and slapshots. The cost comparison is different story however...

[Modo9 0]

i was watching some old penguins hockey the other day - back when everyone used wooden sticks - and i was suprised - i dont think one person broke a stick the entire game - now it seems like whenever you put that "little extra" into a shot the stick snaps - and its always at the worst possible times - go figure....

i hope they fix this durability problem

People broke wood sticks like crazy back in the day. You just didn't see it on the ice. When wood sticks break/crack, the player can feel and usually see the damage that's done. With the composite sticks, you will not know that their strength has been compromised until it is too late and the thing snaps in half. In reality, players broke much more wood sticks back in the day vs. the players today with their composite sticks. If the wood sticks didn't snap, they surely would get soft after a period and a half of one-timers and slapshots. The cost comparison is different story however...

The technical term for a opc breaking is "catastophic failure." Kovy knows about it all too well. And you are exactly right Kobe, especially about cost.

[J-Shera 0]

Modo I belive the term is "ops" not "opc". but i guess everyone is differnt

[cbettner66 0]

i agree that they need to back up their ratings with some actual data - if the ratings that they gave their sticks are purely guesses then there is no point in having them

i can make up that my stick is a 14 rating - but its just an opinion and probably not true unless i can compare it to something - like actual data

[SR27 0]

Just throwing in my 2 cents to this "discussion". I do own a Stealth and it lasted me 4 Months so far and is still going strong as on the first day. And yes I do take a lot of slappers and one timers and no...no problems at all......it´s not like I am a fan of Easton products in any way.....I have not bought any in 2 years before this one but I don´t see a reason to pound on them like you do. Where exactly does it say 11 out of 10? They say Performance 11 okay...but I don´t see it beeing on a scale of 10. Where do they say it was? You can argue about their marketing strategies but well....that´s business and/or ploitics more or less. As long as there is a market they will keep going like this.....if you´re a businessman like you said you should know that.

[DrMolotov 0]

i was watching some old penguins hockey the other day - back when everyone used wooden sticks - and i was suprised - i dont think one person broke a stick the entire game - now it seems like whenever you put that "little extra" into a shot the stick snaps - and its always at the worst possible times - go figure....

i hope they fix this durability problem

...or when someone receives a hard pass and the stick cracks in half.

I bought a cheap Bauer Vapor V last November and its still a decent stick, can't see spending $300+ on a stick

[Seth 0]

In order for easton to make any marketing claim about their product, there has to have been some type of research or test to back it up. So in some test or study in whatever terms they decided to conduct, their product performed as stated. If it was truely all lies then everyone who ever purchased a synergy under these false pretenses would be intitled to a class action law suit.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

Modo, although I will admit part of me doesnt like you because you always seem to have an attitude, I do commend your research. With that being said, I also agree that Easton (and all companies) should just say that they made it skinnier and "sexier". I personally dont own a Stealth, but a teammate of mine does. He weighs 210lbs and takes slapshots all practice long, plays for 2 teams and is on the ice atleast 5 nights a week. The Stealth is the only stick he uses (meaning he doesnt rotate to another stick since he's purchased his Stealth). He's had it like 2 coming on 3 months and it is still going real strong. No cracks or nothing anywhere. I guess what I'm trying to say is not ALL of the world can break Stealths (or sticks in general) on a whim whenever they want to break them. Alot of people do get super durability from any OPS. I know I do, I havent broken the shaft of any OPS, and all of my blades just develop cracks that grow and grow until the blade is too soft then I get rid of them. I bought my Vapor XX back in October and I'm still using it, but the blade is cracking finally. I guess I'm just sayin that not all people have bad luck with breaking OPS. Anyways, I do like your effort and how you back up your comments with proof and facts. Now, do you know the numbers for the SL or SL Grip? I'm interested to know how they stack up compared to the Stealth and Synergy widths and such.

[Fonya 0]

Maybe there not lieing, maybe perfomance is 11 out of 100 and durability 9 out of 100.

[Modo9 0]

Modo I belive the term is "ops" not "opc". but i guess everyone is differnt

one piece composite :P