The polyurethane (PU) manufacturing process in the skateboarding industry has long intrigued me, particularly regarding claims of proprietary formulas.1 While companies proudly advertise their unique compounds, I’ve grown increasingly skeptical about the extent of their chemical innovation. My suspicion stems from a simple observation: polyurethane itself is likely produced in just a handful of massive industrial plants worldwide, with fixed formulas. What skateboarding companies actually do, I believe, is purchase this raw material in bulk and process it into skate products. The notion that small-scale companies could have the capacity to produce their own polyurethane from scratch seems implausible. Are they truly creating novel formulas, or simply selecting from existing options and adding their branding?
Please visit our website for more information on this topic.
This question led me to an enlightening forum discussion with Zipzit, an engineer from Las Vegas, who brought valuable manufacturing insights to the table. Our exchange revealed the complex reality behind PU product manufacturing and raised important questions about innovation in the skateboarding industry.
“What baffles me,” I began, “is how small manufacturers claim to have original, unique formulas that somehow make their wheels both harder and softer simultaneously. How do they develop these formulas, and if they’re truly innovative, why aren’t they patented?”
Zipzit’s response was revealing. “Patent the formula? Why do that?” he countered. “Filing a patent requires disclosing all details, making it easy to clone. As the patent holder, you’d need to prove theft and pursue legal action globally – a costly endeavor in lawyer fees alone. It’s more practical to keep the secret and work with trusted manufacturers.”
He outlined two paths for entering the market: either partnering with existing manufacturers to produce parts to specification or investing in complete manufacturing infrastructure – molds, cooling racks, curing ovens, finishing lathes, and warehouse space. This explanation helped clarify why smaller companies might stick to simpler products like bushings rather than venture into wheel production.
When I pressed about the actual chemistry involved, wondering if it was more akin to mixing e-liquids than serious chemical engineering, our discussion turned to the industry’s broader state. Zipzit shared his experience visiting a major wheel manufacturer in Southern California, describing impressive quality control processes and testing procedures. He painted a picture of an industry more sophisticated than I’d imagined, where niche skateboarding businesses often emerge as side projects from mainstream manufacturing operations.
Link to Tianjin Ruifeng
Notably, while Zipzit emphasized the technical capabilities of these operations, he never contradicted my fundamental suspicion – these companies were still working with the same base polyurethane materials from major chemical manufacturers, not creating their own from scratch. Their sophistication lay in processing and testing, not in fundamental chemistry.
“Outside one or two companies, we see no new ideas – just aggressive marketing,” I argued. “The market is shrinking, and skateboarders are aging. Younger people are looking elsewhere, partly because the industry hasn’t inspired trust that it takes itself and the sport seriously.”
This tension between Zipzit’s optimistic view of manufacturing capabilities and my concerns about industry stagnation highlights a crucial debate within skateboarding. While some companies like G|Bomb demonstrate genuine innovation and engineering rigor, others seem content with minimal advancement, relying instead on marketing claims and brand identity.
The reality likely lies somewhere between these perspectives. The technical capability for sophisticated PU manufacturing exists, as Zipzit’s manufacturing experience confirms. However, the industry’s willingness to invest in meaningful innovation and transparency about their processes remains questionable. The future of skateboarding as a transportation option may depend on whether companies can bridge this gap between potential and practice.
Perhaps most telling is the industry’s reluctance to share findings about their products’ characteristics – a stark contrast to bicycle tire manufacturers who regularly publish detailed performance data. This opacity, combined with sometimes dubious marketing claims, suggests that while the technical capacity for innovation exists, the industry’s approach to development and communication may need to evolve to ensure its long-term relevance.
For more polyurethane raw material manufacturerinformation, please contact us. We will provide professional answers.