HARDGOODS 25/26

[Vanni]

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?

J-Stone talked about unisex boards in his Bombhole episode, and if I remember well, he claimed that designing boards unisex make a lot of sense for a designing standpoint. I should rewatch that part

[HasanPoland]

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.

Yes. Non-wide will black.

Kazu & kazu wide

IMG_8442.jpeg (1.65 MiB) Viewed 3013 times

With matching bindings.

Atlas pro Kazu

IMG_8443.jpeg (732.49 KiB) Viewed 3013 times

[Vanni]

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.

Yes. Non-wide will black.
IMG_8442.jpeg

I prefer the topsheet of this year model, I checked the next year, graphics and specs, the specs are the same, so I bought this year model

[jota]

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.

totally in line… I remember that was exactly what Burton sold for women: narrow, shorter, softer and narrow stance, but that's fine for performance so I understand that there is another part which is pure economic where you have some models of boards that you could make different for women, but the sales volume to women, of that type of boards, is so small, that it doesn't compensate you to generate a new production. So you simply say that the smaller size boards are for women or simply that everything is unisex. In fact, economically it is more profitable to make all the boards unisex and let everyone choose. If in the end, the largest volume of sales outside of EzL and good level riders, is generated by what they "sell you" in the store or by the drawing... or the color…

It is also true that I may just be talking nonsense and someone within the industry may say otherwise.

This year Burton combined two identical boards, the Rewind for women and the Name Dropper for men, into one. They were two identical boards with different designs… it makes sense to combine… cost savings. In the end, everything unisex is pure cost savings.

[casjcade]

Part of the issue is that even if you are creating something for women, half of them will want a mens board for equality. Should bring back narrow sizes I guess.

[eleveneightnate]

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.

There’s no need to try and bait people with rhetorical questions if you already have the answers. Just add your knowledge to the discussion, bruv.

At the same weight, there are still average, measurable physiological differences between the sexes. Things like foot size, muscle and bone density, bone structure, amount of fast twitch muscle fiber, etc. that affect the way a board is ridden and feels. Those things were implied when I said “120 pound woman”.

The Passport example served to highlight a board that was simply scaled down and called “unisex” while disregarding materials and construction. No amount of reduction in waist width is going to overcome all the carbon and triax additives running through the 146 in the same amount as the 163. In fact, that would mean a larger ratio of stiff materials under foot as the sizes get smaller.

[benjinyc]

Burton used to have a women specific only attribute on some of their boards called “outer bite” basically their version of magnetraction, it wasn’t on any of their men’s boards

[Jean77]

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

Yes. Non-wide will black.
IMG_8442.jpeg

I prefer the topsheet of this year model, I checked the next year, graphics and specs, the specs are the same, so I bought this year model

Bought this season model too and pre ordered the new Atlas bindings for next season at my local shop! Kazu baby

[pow_hnd]

Any one have next years Falcors? Or just know where the whole Union catalog might be at?

[Canuck]

Boardsport source has a few articles up for a few shows in France with some previews of product. Should see some more in the next while. There is a picture of one of the new Union Boots.

Looks like Anon is coming out with a new model the M6 to replace the M3/WM3/WM1
https://www.boardsportsource.com/anon-s ... 6-preview/