Thank goodness Peca is not a NY Ranger—who could handle this procrastination, and I don’t think anyone truly cared.  It would have been nice.

As to this new stick, it looks illegal.  Is this a new material?

tdr

Posted by The Dark Ranger from NYC on 08/21/07 at 09:01 PM ET

The reviews of the stick have been decidedly mixed on most hockey equipment boards thus far. 

Players claim that the stick does add more “oomph” to their shots, but weight and balance issues persist, which isn’t surprising given the massive structural changes involved. 

It’s arguable that the stick’s second and third iterations will probably define the line--it’s very hard to get a new technology 100% right on the first try, even with RBK’s R&D resources.

Posted by Georgeums from South Lyon, MI on 08/21/07 at 09:23 PM ET

Reebok is getting way out of hand with their bogus technology. Who actually buys into these scams other than snake oil salesman and the people that are getting sponsored to use it? theres still a few players in the league who use wooden sticks who do just fine… and how many more snapped composite sticks do we have to laugh at during the season.. or how many gold medal’s can be lost when theyre cracked on a face off (ahem, saku koivu vs. mats sundin)? for pete’s sake, i cant believe Gordie Howe actually used a wooden stick and no helmet. what a caveman.

they just keep creating gimmicks of “progress” to keep their money machine rolling. no thanks. take your jerseys to the landfill with you Reebok.

Posted by FreddyKruegersGlove from Milwaukee on 08/21/07 at 09:58 PM ET

Graphite sticks are tremendously resilient--they transfer energy in a manner similar to wood, but with a graphite stick, there’s so little degredation of the material from shot to shot that the stick behaves extremely consistenly, whether you’re on shot #1 or shot #2,000.  Composite stick companies also accurately claim that the sticks’ resilliency allows players to get more power behind shots that would otherwise flutter off the blades of wood sticks, and the sticks are much more durable than one would imagine by watching an NHL game.

The technology works.  If it didn’t, players would still be using wood sticks en masse.  Wood sticks are great, but wood only stands up to x number of shots before becoming “mushy” and unresponsive, while composite materials lasst for 50-100x shots, and then some.

The problem with the O-stick is that it’s trying to pioneer a new technology in terms of adding arches to improve energy transfer and durability, and the art of layering graphite so that it behaves properly on a 4-sided stick is difficult enough--Reebok is in uncharted territory when it comes to the extremely complex geometries of their arched O-stick, so they’re having some difficulty mastering the nuances of such a design as they attempt to lay-up the graphite properly.

Posted by Georgeums from South Lyon, MI on 08/22/07 at 09:53 AM ET

That hole technology is not old, it’s been used in aircraft manufacturing since World War II.  It been used in bridges, antenna towers and many other structures you can see driving down the road.  Now the question is.  Will it lend it’s self to what RBK claims or fall well short?

Pavel used this stick for the past season and a half I believe and I can’t remember the last stick he broke taking a faceoff or shot.  There has to be something to it.  I use both wood and composite, The wood really does not like getting wet, but I like the weight of wood over composite.  That again is just preference.

Posted by Tony from Mid-Michigan on 08/22/07 at 03:47 PM ET