Product Hype: How far is too far?

Companies talk up their products. There’s nothing new there.
But recently I’ve noticed companies sometimes going too far (in my eyes at least).

For example: A company (who I won’t name) is now claiming that they have created a hybrid cambered board that carves harder than a regular camber!
I know racers only use cambered boards, so to me, this is obviously not true.
But even knowing that, I had to try it out myself. No surprise, it didn’t carve as hard as camber.

I know a lot of product hype can’t really be proven or disproven.
But my question is, when a company writes something that can be proven to be false advertising…

Is it going to far?
And should we call them out on it?

Is it Never Summer?

Hahaha! Well I said I won’t name the company…

But I guess that’s why I’m putting it out there to see what you guys think. I have respect for pretty much all snowboard companies out there in one way or another. I don’t really want to blast them on a forum, but I do want them to be honest.
So…
Is it unfair to a company to call them out for lying?
Or is it our responsibility to stop this from continuing so that people aren’t getting suckered into wasting their money?

I just want to know what everyone’s feelings are on this. No right or wrong.

I don’t think they’re lying per se. I believe that THEY truly believe that their boards carve just as good or maybe even better. Personal preference also plays a factor. I know that Never Summer had one of their riders won a boardercross competition on their hybrid camber board. Mervin also believe all their banana + mag boards carve just as good as a cambered board.

I personally still say nothing beats camber for carving. But maybe in their (whatever the company is) case a soft cambered park board may indeed be worse for carving than their freeride/all mountain hybrid cambered board.

“Or is it our responsibility to stop this from continuing so that people aren’t getting suckered into wasting their money?”

A lot of snowboard company’s claims are also based on what the customers think. Maybe a lot of people think CamRock is the best of board worlds so claims from companies like YES, Rossi, Endeavor, etc. that has CamRock boards are true. But for people who like C2 or C3 BTX boards (like myself), will say the profile is better than CamRock for best of both worlds scenario. So in that case who’s lying? Companies who claim CamRock is the best or companies who claim C2 is the best?

I think it all comes down to personal preference, so we can’t actually call them out for lying.

Kinda like the company that claims its tech “Turns Ice into Powder”!!!!!

As consumers, and supposedly intelligent creatures, we should take any business’s, and for that matter any persons, opinions with scepticism!!!!!

Andy, you even said yourself that you wanted to try it because you doubted the companies claims!!!!!

But, I reckon you still had fun testin the theory????? So it’s not all bad!!!!!

Yeah… I mean I like to test all kinds of boards anyway because I have to stay up on how they work so I can teach people how to get the best out of their board. No probs there.

And like I said, most hype from companies is stuff that can’t be proven or dis proven. Like the “best of both worlds” thing is more an opinion than a testable thing.

I’m talking about the things that can be proven to be absolutely false. Like a company saying “This board carves better than camber” can totally be proven false.
Let a bunch of racers ride your board versus a camber board and if they all get faster times on a camber then it’s false! Easy.

I want to look at this scientifically. So we have to use scientific methods to get accurate results.
The fact someone won one boardercross race on a moustache camber doesn’t really prove anything. He was probably the best racer there. If you put him on a camber his time probably would have been faster.
Also Boarder Cross isn’t as strong a test of carving as say GS. Because there are banks. That same guy could have probably won on a full rocker, simply because he’s the better rider.
I think we need to compare the same rider on 2 different boards rather than different riders with different boards for it to be accurate.

It is interesting to get your point of view on it though. I guess I’m the only one who gets annoyed by this stuff.
I’ve definitely bought lots of equipment and found out that their claims are completely false.
I won’t give examples because Skip is a gear head like me and will probably guess the brand again
But I can’t be the only one out there that is annoyed by this, right?

Sorry, it’s one of these threads…

For sure you should call them out! Especially on Boardworld, where we always try to discuss things openly and honestly, and based on merit. It’s all about helping people cut through the crap and steering them towards a good purchase, or just giving them the knowledge they need to make an informed decision.

Mizu, Magentraction has always been a big one for me too. Turning ice into powder… haha, good one! Kinda like how resorts used to have the tendency to call hardpack/icy days “packed powder”.

That all said, the reason I feel shitty “innovations” or straight up bullshit should be called out is so genuine innovations can stand out and get the credit they deserve. There truly is some remarkable things happening in the world of snowboarding, technology and innovation is really taking our products to a new level. So I don’t really have issues with hyping a genuine innovation either.

So yes, call them out, and at the very least, let’s discuss their claims openly and honestly. Let’s test their theories and form our own opinions. If they say their hybrid carves better than camber; in what way? How does it ride better than camber? Why does it ride better than camber? What is the basis for their theory? There could be some merit there, but making a blanket statement isn’t going to work!

I agree.

I actually just had a thought too. If companies DID test their products against other major products, and show the testing and results… man that would sell SO MUCH GEAR!!!
They build machines to test the durability of gear all the time, so maybe they could build a machine to actually test say - the grip a snowboard can hold at different speeds.

As for there being merit to a moustache camber carving harder than a camber, the logic that they put to it is “3 contact points create more pressure than 2”.
Apart from having found this to be false, the real problem I have is this:

Even before I had tested it, I was pretty sure it was false. When you stand on any board it flattens. Which means in a camber you have a flat board with 2 strong pressure points in the nose and tail.
A moustache camber would be a flat board with one strong pressure point in the centre and 2 weak pressure points in the nose and tail. The pressure in the middle makes the board inclined to pivot well for skidded turns but not lock in the nose and tail for carving or even for entering and exiting a skidded turn aggressively.

The part that bugs me is that if I know this… then the very smart engineers DEFINITELY KNOW THIS. So it feels like deliberate deception to me. Which is a shame because they make a damn good board otherwise.

That’s exactly why I didn’t like my Lib TRice!!!!!

If anythin, on hardpack the “3” Contact Points turn into 2, so you’re either Nose & Center, or Tail & Center!!!!!

Where the profile did work really well was when there was a layer of fresh!!!!!

I’ve got a Never Summer Swift on its way, and I’ll be takin it to Japan with me, so I’ll post my findings when I get to give it a burl on hardpack!!!!! (If there is any, that is!!!!! )

Oh yeah, in the pow they should be really good!

Cause it’s essentially a rocker, but you’ll get a little more grip from the nose and tail.
I still think NS makes a damn good board. I just think they should market their boards a little differently.

Maybe instead of saying it carves harder than camber, they could say “it will make carving less catchy than camber and grip better than rocker”. That’s honest and the buyer will get exactly what they expect.

I have actually been looking at a NS split board. The prospector looks pretty bad ass.
Splits usually have kind of a “dead plank” kind of feel. So I feel like the NS profile could be more playful in the pow.
Has anyone demoed a NS Prospector?

Here’s the vid. I personally love NS boards. Used to ride a Proto HD for a season. I think Never Summer boards carve great although I believe it’s due more to their sidecut than their profile shape. I’ve only had 1 run on their RipSaw camber rocker profile (it’s like the new Rome Agent Rocker but like with lots of camber under foot).

Do I think it carves great? Yes. Do I think it carves better than a cambered board? No.

Here’s another review with lots of carving clip on their now replaced Never Summer Raptor which still has their original RC profile (not the new CR profile). CR = double the camber underfoot compared to their original RC. You can judge for yourself on how good their boards carve.

Here’s what the camber profile looks like

Here’s what the CR tech is on snow

Thanks Skip,  but I was actually asking about their split boards.

I’ve ridden a few of their normal boards like the proto and cobra in the original profile and the ripsaw in the new profile.

I wouldn’t talk about products if I hadn’t tested them personally.

Also for anyone who hasn’t tested one themselves, it’s worth noting what conditions they were in in that video.
Soft, freshly groomed runs in every shot. You could carve a plank of 2x4 on that.
Rockered 2x4!

Wait a sec… how is their “Rocker Camber” any different from what’s already on the market?

Firstly, what they have on their website (below) shows the tip and tail contacts points don’t touch the snow when unweighted. So this would be the same as countless other brands using this or a very similar profile in some of their boards… Burton, Lib Tech, Nitro etc. It’s been around for years.

And if the tip and tail contact points do touch the snow, indeed giving extra contact points on the snow, this is exactly what Rome is doing with their Mountain Pop 2.0 profile (which I happen to like very much).

I’m not saying it’s not good or it doesn’t work, far from that, but I fail to see how it’s different from what’s already out there. Anyone want to fill me in?

@Jez: “And if the tip and tail contact points do touch the snow, indeed giving extra contact points on the snow, this is exactly what Rome is doing with their Mountain Pop 2.0 profile (which I happen to like very much).”

Their Camber Rocker/RipSaw profile has the tip and tail touch the snow. But as with any boards with rockered middle section, there will be a bit of variability on how the boards turn out. Some will have the tips touching the snow, some will have the tips very slighty off the snow (I’ve seen this variability with middle rockered boards numerous times, moreso with Mervin boards).

They have 2 profiles:
- Original Rocker Camber, like the pic you posted
- Camber Rocker, like the vid I posted only available on the RipSaw, Funslinger, and West.

@Andy Aitken: I wasn’t replying to your post actually, was just talking in general/stating my opinions hahah. I know you tested them. Totally agree with you camber > beats all for carving. But I actually like Mervin’s C3 better for carving just because that very little dip in the middle makes the turn initiate smoother imo (I demoed the Jamie Lynn and Billy Goat), while still having an overall camber shape (the JL especially, has tons of camber).