The Truth about the Easton Stealth

[Sven 1]

Great thread, quite interesting.

Unfortunately i dont have the time to read everything.

but i will do it later ;)

[iceholes 0]

until last week never had broke one. i broke mine from a 2 handed slash on the middle of the stick, nothing would have survied the slash,

equal and opposite...the other stick survived

[Modo9 0]

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.

When the SL becomes available at regular hockey distributor locations I'll grab one and check it out. I am hoping the SL is closer to the original Standard Synergy dimensions.

[Neo5370 132]

But thanks to Modo, we know the weight reduction is directly related to the use of less, not better materials.

How did Modo determine that the weight reduction is related to the use of less, not better materials? Can his ruler examine carbon composition, structure, weave pattern, etc.? I want one of those rulers!

Give me a break! That's the whole problem with Modo's theory: Just because the width of the stick is 12% less than the Synergy and the weight is also 12% less, that does not PROVE that they used the identical material to make it.

Dude, if you have a shaft or a rod or stick or whatever, and it is 50 inches long and weighs 50 lbs. and you cut off 1 inch of it, that stick is now shorter by 1/50 of it's original length and lighter by 1/50 of it's orignal weight.

They're directly correlated. Modo's not saying 1 inch equals 1 lb., but the percentage is the same.

So you take the stealth and add back the 12.xxx whatever percent of the shaft dimensions and it will weigh the same as an original syngergy.

But you are right, it does not prove the materials are identical, it just proves the stealth material does not weigh that much less than originaly synergy material if at all.

C'mon, what are these sticks made of? Carbon, Kevlar, and paint. Atomic weights don't change.

And don't misread me as saying no one should buy a Stealth. I just agree w/ modo, in that consumers should know what they are buying.

[kosydar 0]

Dude, if you have a shaft or a rod or stick or whatever, and it is 50 inches long and weighs 50 lbs. and you cut off 1 inch of it, that stick is now shorter by 1/50 of it's original length and lighter by 1/50 of it's orignal weight.

They're directly correlated. Modo's not saying 1 inch equals 1 lb., but the percentage is the same.

But that is assuming that every inch of the shaft weighs the same. With the long taper, that most likely isn't the case.

[Neo5370 132]

Dude, if you have a shaft or a rod or stick or whatever, and it is 50 inches long and weighs 50 lbs. and you cut off 1 inch of it, that stick is now shorter by 1/50 of it's original length and lighter by 1/50 of it's orignal weight. 

They're directly correlated.  Modo's not saying 1 inch equals 1 lb., but the percentage is the same.

But that is assuming that every inch of the shaft weighs the same. With the long taper, that most likely isn't the case.

Yeah, I the example I used was for a uniform piece. But, I figure the longer taper would only add to modo's theory.

More taper equals less material towards the bottom of the stick.

I will also concede that I did not account for the blade. And since it's such a weird shape, not to mention various blade lenghts, it'd be a nightmare to figure how much of the total weight it accounts for.

[A_Steeves12 0]

the stealth is probley light because of the fact it a true one piece stick it is not fused there fore there is no tendon that would be a factor in the weight reduction.

also i could care less about the weight of my stick . ive gone from a vaporXX to a sher-wood force with axion blade and that is not the lightest set up in the wrold. i dont find a diffrence in the weight you shouldnt be worrieing about the weight of your stick when your on the ice if you arew theres a problem.

bottem line the weight factor doesnt matter.

ps. kudos to modo for getting those numbers that was some nice math

[Eazy_b97 1]

It's not a true OPS.

[mack 44]

Great thread, quite interesting.

Unfortunately i dont have the time to read everything.

but i will do it later ;)

Fantastic, I shall sit down in anticipation of you adding something that will absolutely floor me.

[Modo9 0]

First, I'm not the hugest fan of Eastons products but I'm not quite sure what the big deal is. So it's slimmer and has a longer taper. Great, that's how they saved weight. Who's even to say for sure if they didn't do anything different inside the shaft or the blade? Have you actually analyzed the materials in a lab? Second, marketing? You're complaining about marketing? Let's be realistic for a minute and just take a look around. Go to a few websites or watch a few commercials on TV and tell me nobody else is loading up the marketing bullshit. Easton certainly didn't invent it and compared to a lot of companies they're not really even all that good at it. So what if it says durability 9/10. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's as meaningless as "family values" or "hyperthreading technology." Give me a break dude...

Hyperthreading is a legitimate technology created by Intel that allows a Pentium processor to perform TWO tasks at once without any lag time! So you can download music and create a powerpoint presentation at the same time and your computer will not slow down at all! How many times are you performing one task on your computer and would like to do something else but you can't because you don't wanna mess with the program that is running. Hyperthreading is the real deal.

And the reason Easton's marketing bugs me so much is because it does not fit in with the scheme of the industry. What other stick manuf boldly put b.s. stats on their sticks? Mission M-1 is a great looking stick that only says shaft by Aldila--the leading manufacturer of Golf shafts. Thats a fact. Bauer XX's say Ultra-premium composite, and I am sure they probably do use top-of-the-line composite products in the XX. The XN10, although not the most aestheitcally pleasing with shitty paint job and all, simply says Pure Balance--which hell, feel an XN10. It is Pure Balance. And when TPS came out with the first 395gram opc back in November of '03 (a year before Easton) they were HONEST and admitted they removed Kevlar to get down to that weight. They didn't reduce the shaft size and didn't claim the XN10 would get you more Goals like Easton does!!! (More Control + More Speed= More Goals) Even CCM has a V120 and a V120C . . . the C denoting a contoured shape shaft. Now granted the Stealth is not a contoured shaft, but it sure as hell is not a Standard shape/size shaft. Someone mentioned a class action lawsuit and really their are grounds for one. According to the Easton catalogue (look at the specs above each stick) the shaft handle for the Stealth and the ST and the Synthesis are all exactly the same. This is False. The Stealth has a much different shaft size and shape. It is not a standard square handle. And the performance ratings on the stick, without legitimate research documentation to publicly show, which I am sure they don't have, is also blatant False Consumer Information.

[Modo9 0]

It is a big deal for consumers to know that the weight is due to a change in the shaft dimensions and not in the materials or technology.

Because maybe weekend wayne, joe consumer, etc. has never used a normal silver synergy or maybe he didn't notice the thinner shaft and actually thought he was plunking down 200 USD for a new generation super stick.

But thanks to Modo, we know the weight reduction is directly related to the use of less, not better materials.

The big problem as modo stated is that the marketing has fooled the consumer into thinking they're buying some type of NASA designed stick, when in fact they are just buying a 100 or 85 flex intermediate synergy..............for 200 dollars.

A+, that pretty much Nails it on the Head!

[Modo9 0]

I think the biggest thing people have to realize about buying a ops is that they break. They break more often then a two-piece or a woodie. And yes, people pay good money, and it shouldn't pop on the 1st use...but that is the chance you take! It's like buying a brand new Mercedes. Looks great, performs great, you go onto the highway after just getting it at the dealer, and WHAM! You get smacked and sent into a guardrail or something. What are you gonna do! Sh*t happens! There is an inherent risk in getting anything new. Some are willing to spend the money, and deal with the risk, and some are not.

I applaud your technical research Modo, but it didn't really tell me anything I didn't expect, that is, a suped-up Synergy. The underlying thing here is performance has increased with the Stealth, however they acheived it. Whether it be through longer tapers and less thick sidewalls, they improved on the model. It's like comparing a Model T Ford from back in the 1920's to a Ford Taurus of today. The car has come a long way, continued to improve, and will, through technology continue to improve. Same with sticks. And if Easton wants to flaunt it, then so be it. They probably attain those performance/durability ratings in a closed testing facility where they use a machine to measure its longevity shot after shot. In that regard, the Stealth might be a better performing stick than a Synergy. But once you add in untestable variables like the rigors of gameplay, how can a company be expected to measure that? How can they be expected to know if some 300 lb gorilla is gonna lean on your new Stealth in Kamploops, BC, when in North Jersey, there are no 300 lb gorillas in my league. Is Easton supposed to lower the durability factor because they ASSUME it MIGHT break? Of course not!

Again, life is a chance, new stuff is a risk. If some are willing to pay for it so be it. And if Easton wants to label their stuff under their own guidelines, then so be it. They cannot be held accountable for many unmeasurable abuses a stick MIGHT go through. Conjecture and guesstimates are not something Easton RandD or Engineers can really count on.

Reputable companies perform R&D tests specifically "In the Field." And so did Easton. They gave the Stealth to some of the top NHL'ers to test. By the look of how many times Sakic snapped his Stealth I can only assume Easton has made up a 9/10 Durability Rating.

[Chadd 916]

Things I would put a 9/10 rating on:

1979 Nova

Funny side note... Chevy tried to market this car it Latin America, and it was a total flop. Chevy wondered why, until they asked somebody who spoke Spanish... the phrase "no va", translated to English, is "doesn't go"...

Funny how that story is still floating around.

http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

[Gongshow11 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.

When the SL becomes available at regular hockey distributor locations I'll grab one and check it out. I am hoping the SL is closer to the original Standard Synergy dimensions.

i have the SL and have been using it for roughly a month now. I have an 85 flex and it seems the 100 flex has a slightly larger shaft shape. my teammate has the 100. I came from a si core to the SL, the si core i broke was in 2 weeks, but i had one last me 6 months. the SL right now is still extremly stiff, and i know a kid with a stealth on my team who is in the same boat. knocking the stealth based on your math doesnt justify anything. Easton alwyas put the performance above the durability on their sticks, hence why they are performance sticks. The only stick i think where performance should be higher is on the ultra lite 8.5/8.5 is too low for it i think. if they made the stealth 10/8 instead of 11/9, would u still buy it?

hell all of this talk about the stealth being whippy and light and smaller make sme want to buy one

[Wayne 0]

But thanks to Modo, we know the weight reduction is directly related to the use of less, not better materials.

How did Modo determine that the weight reduction is related to the use of less, not better materials? Can his ruler examine carbon composition, structure, weave pattern, etc.? I want one of those rulers!

Give me a break! That's the whole problem with Modo's theory: Just because the width of the stick is 12% less than the Synergy and the weight is also 12% less, that does not PROVE that they used the identical material to make it.

Cut up a Stealth and a Synergy, put pieces of them under an electron-microscope and anlyze the carbon structure. If those are identical, you've proven something (at least to yourself; not many others seem to care!).

By the way, did anyone really look at an Easton stick before Modo came up with his highly scientific proof and think "oh, the durablility of this one is 9 instead of 8, so it'll last longer"? If so, go and check out your grovery store and count how many "new and improved", "extra strength", and "the ultimate" products you can buy. If suckers fall for advertising, it's their problem........

I haven't tried a Stealth and have never wanted to have one, but there seem to be plenty of people enjoying their Stealths, regardless of what types of numbers Easton prints on them.

its Organic Chemistry!

I never thought I'd mix one of my worst favorite things in the world, with one of my favorite things in the world (hockey).

[Chadd 916]

My pro stock SL is thinner than my older pro stock synergy, we all know pro stock stuff can differ from retail though. I like the fact you did some research to back up your opinion, however I do see at least one potential problem with your theory.

Making the shaft thinner top to bottom or front to back by 12% won't reduce the overall weight by 12%. Without reducing all dimensions by 12%, you would not see that same percentage of weight savings. I'm sure that the smaller size is responsible for some of the savings, but I don't believe that it is responsible for all of it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

Has anyone else noticed that the shaft dimension is slightly larger where the blade meets the shaft. I.E., it flairs out (think ZBubble - only not nearly as pronounced) at the bottom of the shaft where the blade hosel would theoretically be married to the shaft.

Wonder if this is meant to help the kick point, or whether the shaft dimension change required this, or if it's just meant to be more durable in some fashion?

[Modo9 0]

The shaft fits over the blade like a sleeve causing it to flare out.

[Cheechoo 0]

But thanks to Modo, we know the weight reduction is directly related to the use of less, not better materials.

How did Modo determine that the weight reduction is related to the use of less, not better materials? Can his ruler examine carbon composition, structure, weave pattern, etc.? I want one of those rulers!

Give me a break! That's the whole problem with Modo's theory: Just because the width of the stick is 12% less than the Synergy and the weight is also 12% less, that does not PROVE that they used the identical material to make it.

Dude, if you have a shaft or a rod or stick or whatever, and it is 50 inches long and weighs 50 lbs. and you cut off 1 inch of it, that stick is now shorter by 1/50 of it's original length and lighter by 1/50 of it's orignal weight.

They're directly correlated. Modo's not saying 1 inch equals 1 lb., but the percentage is the same.

So you take the stealth and add back the 12.xxx whatever percent of the shaft dimensions and it will weigh the same as an original syngergy.

But you are right, it does not prove the materials are identical, it just proves the stealth material does not weigh that much less than originaly synergy material if at all.

C'mon, what are these sticks made of? Carbon, Kevlar, and paint. Atomic weights don't change.

And don't misread me as saying no one should buy a Stealth. I just agree w/ modo, in that consumers should know what they are buying.

So if I measure and weigh my TV and my toaster oven and find that the toaster is 78% smaller and 78% lighter than my TV, that will prove that they just shrunk down my TV to make my toater oven, right? The numbers don't lie, right?

You are right, atomic weights don't change, but how you manufacture and handle materials can change a lot. There are lots of different ways you can layer, weave, heat, compress, etc. a material such as carbon or kevlar. Again, just because my TV and toaster both have plastic and aluminum parts doesn't mean that they used TV components to make my toaster.

Check out Jackymc's post in the following thread:

http://www.modsquadhockey.com/index.php?sh...ic=8657&hl=flex

It'll give you an idea how differently you can treat the same material.

If Modo's argument was correct, then every stick produced with the same material should either weigh exactly the same if they are the same size or, if they are different sizes, have the same relative weight according to their different sizes. I somehow doubt that that would be the case.

[JR Boucicaut 3803]

Don't add fuel to the fire...

[Modo9 0]

Something tells me Jackymc has initimate knowledge of the stick manufacturing process. If this were true he could be of great benefit. So, how about it Jackymc . . . If I were to guess, I'd say you're either a college student or someone who works in manufacturing . . . Your identity is safe here :D

[Modo9 0]

Don't add fuel to the fire...

5 pages of posts, 1700+ views, and that is the most constructive thing you can type on your keyboard? Don't worry, Easton could care less about this thread.

[Sven 1]

Great work Modo :D

im sure easton is kinda bummed now

[Modo9 0]

I'd be floored and dumbfounded if this were to ever actually get back to the higher levels of Easton Corporate.

[JR Boucicaut 3803]

Oh, I could. It's more fun watching you twist in the wind.