EzLounging

As it applies to a snowboard & its ride quality, it's a lot more dependent on a variety of factors. But of course, there are general facts about different materials. First ex. coming to mind is the reason stranda uses ash based cores - it is measurably stronger/higher tensile strength than other common woods used for cores, transfers less vibration, and also a bit heavier. For comparison, we know balsa is light, and a bit soft/weak as far as wood goes. In a snowboard, the longevity of ash can be - of course still anecdotally - seen in the ride over time.

We know sintered works better (when waxed) and is a harder material, so less prone to deeper damage, but as far as speed, too many factors. I don't think most people would argue with the evidence of it being "better" in a linear sense - re: hardness, performance with wax - whether you call it anecdotal or not

Then there's the build... you can give two people the same layup, but the end result (ride feel, durability, etc) could vary noticeably depending how well they can put a board together. So in a case like that, material x could be measurably better on its own in whatever way, but that may not come through in the snowboard

When it comes to things like pop/etc, that is so wildly dependent on the rider, their preference, etc. I'm sure some entity out there has tested rebound of various materials that end up used in snowboards, but

Quality isn't something I concern myself with, when it comes to known brands, and I'm generally easy on gear even when I ride something for years. I think there are certain materials, or certain applications, where you can say that one is measurably better than another, and you can feel it. Other materials could be measurably "better" in and of themselves, but maybe not when applied to a snowboard re: feel/performance... and then there are others which may not be measurable, so just depends what you're looking at and how you're looking at it, I guess.

Spenser wrote: Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:06 pm As it applies to a snowboard & its ride quality, it's a lot more dependent on a variety of factors. But of course, there are general facts about different materials. First ex. coming to mind is the reason stranda uses ash based cores - it is measurably stronger/higher tensile strength than other common woods used for cores, transfers less vibration, and also a bit heavier. For comparison, we know balsa is light, and a bit soft/weak as far as wood goes. In a snowboard, the longevity of ash can be - of course still anecdotally - seen in the ride over time.

We know sintered works better (when waxed) and is a harder material, so less prone to deeper damage, but as far as speed, too many factors. I don't think most people would argue with the evidence of it being "better" in a linear sense - re: hardness, performance with wax - whether you call it anecdotal or not

Then there's the build... you can give two people the same layup, but the end result (ride feel, durability, etc) could vary noticeably depending how well they can put a board together. So in a case like that, material x could be measurably better on its own in whatever way, but that may not come through in the snowboard

When it comes to things like pop/etc, that is so wildly dependent on the rider, their preference, etc. I'm sure some entity out there has tested rebound of various materials that end up used in snowboards, but

Quality isn't something I concern myself with, when it comes to known brands, and I'm generally easy on gear even when I ride something for years. I think there are certain materials, or certain applications, where you can say that one is measurably better than another, and you can feel it. Other materials could be measurably "better" in and of themselves, but maybe not when applied to a snowboard re: feel/performance... and then there are others which may not be measurable, so just depends what you're looking at and how you're looking at it, I guess.

As a general addition to my overall ideas

I don't disagree that materials have inherent differences in characteristics that do transfer over to how the equipment should perform. To some that may intimate it's better, for their purpose. I may even (likely do) agree with the assertion. After all, I am and have been a NOW guy through and through since their inception, and I'll put forth my theory about energy transference and why I FEEL they perform better, but there's still no proof and many people out there disagree.

And call it arguing a technicality regarding sintered vs extruded, but it remains that though there are differences in materials that should translate to qualities of performance, the marginal benefits of those differences when in use are largely unknown. For example, based upon a test between the two types of bases, where they wax, scrape and then weigh the two bases after, it's been shown that sintered weighs more after and thus is said to 'hold' more wax. And so from that test the claim is made that because sintered holds more wax it is more hydrophobic, and therefore faster.

And while I may agree with the logic and I may even agree in practice, I still acknowledge to myself that the performance claim is unproven, and furthermore even if true, the marginal benefits may be so small that it renders the point moot when it comes to performance.

BUT & AND I also acknowledge that there may be a distinct and quantifiably meaningful advantage when it comes to performance. It may turn out that sintered is so much faster that even with all the other variables and inputs, it will always outperform extruded.

I don't have a dog in the fight (so to speak) because I don't mind one way or another... still, (as far as I'm aware) it's an unknown what the true difference is and so I still recognize most all performance claims as a supposition.

I have a lot of things I feel to be true about snowboards and equipment. I feel black bases are faster than the rest. I feel solid color bases are faster than clear. I feel bamboo sidewalls are superior in response and ride to all other sidewalls. And so on. Just based upon my time riding I have my feelings and beliefs which, I'm fairly certain are somehow true. I may be right. I may be wrong.

I'm not saying that all boards and materials are the same. I'm certain that's not true. I'm only pointing out that the claims so often put forth as fact (even my own), are not facts. Some may be true, some may be false. Some may be true, but the difference so small that it's meaningless. Some may be overtly true. Who knows.

But one thing is for certain (to me) , that that Laurant board doesn't have better enough anything to claim its worth several thousand dollars.

what

edit: (mostly kidding)

edit 2: (almost completely)

I really like this debate because I have changed my way of thinking about some curious things. IMO i draw these conclusions (differentiating quality and response as different things):

1- quality of materials: they have more quality when they are purer and less if they are more mixed or dirty. (response is not quality, it´s functionality)

2- manufacturing quality: it is the example of a good cook or a bad cook with the same products. Here quality is important. A good factory creates a perfect assembly and then there is the sentimental side of handmade assembly that i like

3- response: here I see that it´s generated by the combination of three aspects: materials, manufacturing and shape. That ´s where I was wrong thinking of more expensive materials as higher quality and the reality is, different materials, different response. And there we could enter into the debate of whether or not the response is noticeable and how much, and for what level of riding and for what kind of snow... That is the beauty of the subjective choice (where most of the EzL are) I made a mistake many times looking for what the board gave me or the brand sold me instead of thinking about what I needed... to enjoy... and that is where the brands quickly catalog the materials for quality not for functionality to charge us more making us think that we need the most expensive and this is where we come to the yves saint laurent board who has the ability or the force or the arrogance to sell nothing whith a logo... with rubber... for 10000 euros and from there it amuses me two things:
a- They have rounded to 10,000 and have not fallen into the vulgarity of putting 9,999 for those who may consider the ten as something unattainable and
b- the huge logo on the base (not on the topsheet) so that it looks good in the cafeteria...


but all this can be purely subjective

do it ride good

Stranda
https://www.strandasnowboards.com/produ ... snowboard/
https://www.strandasnowboards.com/produ ... snowboard/

The Biru looks interesting, is it a new board?

Yep - it's their answer to a short/wide all-around fun board. Relative to the stranda lineup, it's got a tight sidecut and isn't built as beefy (not to be confused with built well/durable), which only brings it down to being more "normal." So, a cool modern daily board that will be enjoyed by the masses who are liking extra width, well made & looking good.

It doesn't require the precision/skill of something like the cheater, promotes more fun/playful riding than the descender, and is more all-mountain/freestyle than the others.

Really awesome silhouette & profile. Not a board for me, but I think tons of folks would like it. Kinda like the fullbag supernaut in that sense, while "my" board is the hammerhead.

The makrill is their Japan-inspired surfer that apparently rails for how small it is

these off the shelf brands gotta dig a litttttle deeper.

Those look suspiciously similar to the Drake Cock-tail