HARDGOODS 25/26

[RadDad801]

Kazu probably has my favorite graphics two years running now.

Did you mean next-season raven graphic?
Base is beauty, but topsheet… topshit

Atlas Pro Union bindings Kazu will be sick ! :>

I actually kinda dig the red version on the Wide models. I do wonder if it will have the same wood veneer finish though.

[timmeh]

I kind of feel like if you want to have the opinion that unisex boards are just marketing fluff, then you also have to be able to comment on what truly makes a women’s board a women’s board…

Materials come to mind. For example, why does the 146 Passport have the same exact carbon layup as the 163 knowing the people riding those sizes will have nearly opposite physical traits? So, a 120 pound woman gets the same 10 strips of carbon underfoot as a 220 pound guy? That’ll make the board ride totally different for those two people. Why not create a women’s specific version that has scaled back carbon so that the end users get roughly the same experience re: flex, response, etc?

also maybe waist widths - women tend to have smaller feet than men even at the same height and weight, so a board designed for a 140lb woman should probably have a narrower ww than a board for a 140lb man

[dpartridge7]

I’m not trying to be a dick but it doesn’t appear to allow you to get in substantially more quickly or more easily in my opinion. It still requires messing with your straps just like a regular strap binding but with the added benefit (read detriment) of the rear folding high back. There is for sure a market for the ease of entry crowd and I’m not knocking it, but these don’t really seem to sufficiently solve that issue in a meaningful way, while seemingly diminishing performance in other ways. I just don’t see a place for them or what they’re driving at with these.

Our goal with FASE, in collaboration with our brand partners, is to deliver the best high-performance two-strap binding system. It enhances the locked-in feel, precision, and board connection of traditional two-strap bindings while being compatible with any boots—all in a lightweight, minimal, and durable design. Going fully automatic would compromise these core principles. Try it, and you’ll experience just how fast entry is and how effortless the exit feels!

[michaelangelo]

feels like being in the MTB/cycling world. manufacturers making shit to make shit

thinking fase will be a phase

[kimchi]

I kind of feel like if you want to have the opinion that unisex boards are just marketing fluff, then you also have to be able to comment on what truly makes a women’s board a women’s board…

Materials come to mind. For example, why does the 146 Passport have the same exact carbon layup as the 163 knowing the people riding those sizes will have nearly opposite physical traits? So, a 120 pound woman gets the same 10 strips of carbon underfoot as a 220 pound guy? That’ll make the board ride totally different for those two people. Why not create a women’s specific version that has scaled back carbon so that the end users get roughly the same experience re: flex, response, etc?

also maybe waist widths - women tend to have smaller feet than men even at the same height and weight, so a board designed for a 140lb woman should probably have a narrower ww than a board for a 140lb man

Take it a step further than that, assume the 140 lb woman and man are the same height and foot size-- you still wouldn't design the same way, because on median their body composition, proportions, and power output will be different. At the very least I'd expect the women's board to be softer, inserts positioned little differently, and core profile and construction tuned to accommodate. And we don't even get to that fine point of distinction, because similar weight women have smaller feet than men at a population level.

And yea sure, SOME women can definitely handle those boards. Zoi can rip a stock Hometown Hero (if not a custom build) and Daria Fuchs and Spencer O'Brien are ripping around on Koruas. You can reasonably claim that smaller "unisex" boards are for smaller dudes and subset of outlier women who can leverage stiffer, wider decks than typically found in women's lines. Or you could just put the specs out there without labels and leave it to consumers to choose for themselves. But given the typical snowboard consumer is... not that sophisticated, I don't think companies can sincerely claim to be splitting the difference and building for both genders.

[ad1105]

One of our local shop owners loved the FASE Katana when he demoed them last week. Sounded pretty confident that it can win over a lot of the two-strap faithful. I got to fiddle around with the system in the shop and nothing felt cheap or sketchy. We took one apart and reassembled it; the hardware felt solid and if anything would fail, it’d be pretty simple to repair. Of course, more parts = more potential points of failure but I think it might be a viable alternative quick-entry option.
I’m personally not interested enough to ditch straps yet, though. Haven’t found anything I like more than the Atlas/Atlas Pro.

[C.Fuzzy]

Clothes have always been genderless. It's our insecurities that make them gendered.

I’m definitely gonna try that. “Babe, your swimsuit top is just a product of your insecurities and serves no function. Embrace genderlessness.”

Not sure that's what I meant... but sure, I'm all for bra burning. Rub your ass in the moonshine, let's take it back to '69.

[C.Fuzzy]

feels like being in the MTB/cycling world. manufacturers making shit to make shit

thinking fase will be a phase

Kinda the feeling the new union mounting system gave me. Like...Are we just shaving grams now? But it's cool.

[Ancahlagon]

I kind of feel like if you want to have the opinion that unisex boards are just marketing fluff, then you also have to be able to comment on what truly makes a women’s board a women’s board…

Materials come to mind. For example, why does the 146 Passport have the same exact carbon layup as the 163 knowing the people riding those sizes will have nearly opposite physical traits? So, a 120 pound woman gets the same 10 strips of carbon underfoot as a 220 pound guy? That’ll make the board ride totally different for those two people. Why not create a women’s specific version that has scaled back carbon so that the end users get roughly the same experience re: flex, response, etc?

If we size boards on weight, and we do, then Sure 220lbs could arguably need something different than 120lbs, but what about 120lbs and male and 120lbs and female? Then what? This is mildly rhetorical as I do know what viable answers have been posited by the industry over the years.

[Ancahlagon]

Materials come to mind. For example, why does the 146 Passport have the same exact carbon layup as the 163 knowing the people riding those sizes will have nearly opposite physical traits? So, a 120 pound woman gets the same 10 strips of carbon underfoot as a 220 pound guy? That’ll make the board ride totally different for those two people. Why not create a women’s specific version that has scaled back carbon so that the end users get roughly the same experience re: flex, response, etc?

also maybe waist widths - women tend to have smaller feet than men even at the same height and weight, so a board designed for a 140lb woman should probably have a narrower ww than a board for a 140lb man

Take it a step further than that, assume the 140 lb woman and man are the same height and foot size-- you still wouldn't design the same way, because on median their body composition, proportions, and power output will be different. At the very least I'd expect the women's board to be softer, inserts positioned little differently, and core profile and construction tuned to accommodate. And we don't even get to that fine point of distinction, because similar weight women have smaller feet than men at a population level.

And yea sure, SOME women can definitely handle those boards. Zoi can rip a stock Hometown Hero (if not a custom build) and Daria Fuchs and Spencer O'Brien are ripping around on Koruas. You can reasonably claim that smaller "unisex" boards are for smaller dudes and subset of outlier women who can leverage stiffer, wider decks than typically found in women's lines. Or you could just put the specs out there without labels and leave it to consumers to choose for themselves. But given the typical snowboard consumer is... not that sophisticated, I don't think companies can sincerely claim to be splitting the difference and building for both genders.

The largest factor is center of gravity and how the board is driven. Men tend to drive through the board, women tend to foot steer. This is not my opinion, though I do agree, but is one of the primary differences along with width that brands who have actually made true women’s specific gear have stated are the differences. Ride, K2, and Burton. Now, how do you address that? Many ways, but all to the similar effect of making the board softer torsionally, particularly between the feet. Speaking on unisex boards, most of them have a break point where the waist gets more than progressively narrower, essentially reaching an opposite-of-wide scenario. A narrower board is torsional softer, so are they not essentially building in some of that effect?

Also as an anecdote, Trek did a lot of market testing and research while they were making the women’s Fuel, the Lush I think?, and ultimately decided that women, regardless of their differing biomechanics, simply preferred the standard bikes rather than the women’s specific geos.