what advantages do non metals have over metals?
Back in the 80's and 90's there were aluminum sticks. they were an aluminum shaft and the blade was made of wood and if the blade broke you could just change it and keep the same shaft. Just like todays stocks you could get different flexes and the blades you could get different lies on them. the shafts cost about $120 and the blades were about $20-$35 if remember correctly. Christian was the first to come uot with them amd that's where Easton got their start in hockey.
Well only the older players use wooden hockey sticks, if they still prefer. They are actually made of graphite now. I don't think they were ever made out of metal, maybe because it was expensive, but I'm guessing it was because they didn't want to lug around a solid metal pole to play hockey with. HEAV-YYY!
No. Have you seen the cost of a composite stick recently? Many are over $200. The bigger reason is because metal sticks would not provide anywhere near the feel that wood or composite sticks provide. You can still buy metal shafts.
It has more to do with the properties of wood and metal. Wood is lightweight, flexible, and quite durable for a natural material. Metal does not yield easily, but deforms if taken beyond its capability; it also needs expensive treatment to resist exposure to water. Wood also resists cold better than metal. Metal conducts heat faster than wood, but this means that a cold metal stick would chill your hands worse than wood. Metal may offer strength, but you probably wouldn't want to deal with it when your opponent is pissed off and looking to bash your skull in. The arguments are somewhat moot to begin with, since synthetic materials such as carbon fiber are now more sought after than either wood or metal.
No, but nowadays hockey sticks are made with graphite, to be more lightweight and flexible, and metal is to heavy and dangerous to use for a hockey stick.
