Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Afterbang Swing Weight?

profile picture
Tmeels
Posts: 1009 - Karma: 77
Thinking seriously about afterbangs. I am a EC 99% Park skier. LOTS of rails. LOTS of switch ups. So this is where my concern comes in. They feel a little heavy, at least compared to my anthems. Anybody that has been riding em, do they feel like they have a heavy swing weight? Just concerned about rail tricks where I gotta be real quick. Searched a lot, nothing regarding weight
Oct 29 2009 2:40AM
0 0
profile picture
CIK
Posts: 5 - Karma: 10
according to Line's webpage the afterbang is a littlebit lighter, like 5 grams in difference betwen the 177 afterbang and 178 anthem. so i think they're pretty equal in weight!
Oct 29 2009 8:35AM
0 0
profile picture
BWalmer
Posts: 9141 - Karma: 12,883
Swing weight and physical weight is different, swing weight is about how light they feel when spinning, so it's more about aerodynamics. I've skied AR6s and they are pretty heavy (heavier than Afterbangs for sure), but they had a low swing weight so you can't really tell how heavy they are when spinning. That being said it's hard to tell how much swing weight they have while just holding them, but most symmetrical skis (especially by Line) have a fairly low swing weight so I think you'll be fine with them on rails and what not (that is what they were made for).
Oct 29 2009 11:33AM
0 0
profile picture
CoachG
Posts: 2546 - Karma: 448
BINGO!
Oct 29 2009 12:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Midwestjibski
Posts: 1676 - Karma: 77
I just got my afterbangs mounted with look px12 jibs and they are heavy as hell.   Line made them for rails though so I don't imagine they will be that hard to do switchups on.  (I plan on learning switchups this year haha)
Oct 29 2009 4:09PM
0 0
profile picture
GNARBARSTAR
Posts: 639 - Karma: 16
px 12's are heavy on there own.
Oct 29 2009 4:17PM
0 0
profile picture
BWalmer
Posts: 9141 - Karma: 12,883
I was going to say the same thing, I made the mistake of putting them on AR6s and it made them even heavier.
Oct 29 2009 4:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Midwestjibski
Posts: 1676 - Karma: 77
In all honesty they aren't that much heavier then other bindings (maybe 1 pound) and that's not really going to make that much of a difference while skiing.
Oct 29 2009 4:54PM
0 0
profile picture
JacheOReally
Posts: 3597 - Karma: 253
seeing how anthems pretty much feel like there is nothing on your feet, there has to be a difference.  You can like do flatland 12's on anthems
Oct 29 2009 5:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Tmeels
Posts: 1009 - Karma: 77
1 pound is a lot considering skis only weigh a few each. I obviously realize what swing weight is, I asked the question. Thanks for the definition but thats not what I was looking for. I was looking for people's personal experience with them spinning sw/ups etc. compared to skis they have past ridden.
Oct 29 2009 5:04PM
0 0
profile picture
K_FRANK
Posts: 513 - Karma: 277

i got some afterbangs with marker griffons the swing weight on these are actually really low i can barley feel the added weight when spinning and as long as u pair them up with a somewhat light binding you will barley notice the weight because these skis are poppy as hell

Oct 29 2009 7:39PM
0 0
profile picture
broskijib
Posts: 105 - Karma: 10
how can afterbangs handle jumps? They seem rather noodly
Oct 29 2009 10:09PM
0 0
profile picture
K_FRANK
Posts: 513 - Karma: 277
if u get a bigger size they actually are alot more stable then i expected
Nov 2 2009 11:40PM
0 0
profile picture
pommes_vertes.
Posts: 1260 - Karma: 10
This is true to an extent, though it actually has almost nothing to do with aerodynamics.  Swing weight is essentially just another name for the skis moment of inertia, which is it's resistance to change in rotational velocity.  It's entirely about how the mass is distributed throughout the ski.  More mass farther from the axis of rotation (in this case, under foot) means a higher moment of inertia, thus a higher swing weight.  Skis with more of their mass underfoot and less towards the tips will have a lower swing weight.

This is also the reason shorter skis have a lower swing weight.
Nov 3 2009 12:04AM
0 0
profile picture
Kev-Kev.
Posts: 680 - Karma: 34
Ik what you mean man... i def think that the afterbangs have way more swing weight than anthems. Anthems have a very slim profile on either side of the butter zone but the afterbangs have all that wood and laminate which makes you feel like you can't lock after a sw up. If it were me, I would stick with the anthems for rails. I LOVE MY ANTHEMS.
Nov 3 2009 7:04AM
0 0
profile picture
KennyC
Posts: 1922 - Karma: 46
ya you say that but when you get a binding thats like 5 grams less in weight it will feel soo much lighter. i skid my friends anthems with px 12's on em and once i got back on my little silencers with griffons it felt like i was wearing shoes.
Nov 3 2009 10:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Atypical
Posts: 1339 - Karma: 45
I bet the afterbang would have a lower swing weight, just because of the cut of the skis are so much slimmer.
Nov 3 2009 11:48AM
0 0
profile picture
pjbauer
Posts: 2145 - Karma: 480
this..
sounds like you gotta build those leg muscles
Nov 3 2009 1:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Tmeels
Posts: 1009 - Karma: 77
I feel like what your saying about not being able to lock sw ups is completely untrue as its made to be a rail ski and tons of kids are murdering rails with them and you are the first to ever say that and are obviously extremely biased towards anthems.
Nov 3 2009 8:11PM
0 0
profile picture
Kev-Kev.
Posts: 680 - Karma: 34

I guess ik what you're saying, but i prefer anthems over afterbangs. Thats just my 2 cents...

Nov 3 2009 8:18PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)