Leaderboard

If CCM and Bauer decided to cut down production costs by not doing 1/2 size lasts for retail skates folks here would be crucifying them....

Happy B-Day 2021!!! Thanks @JR Boucicaut for all you do! Cant wait to see everyone soon!

Leading candidate for post of the year!

Did this photo load for anyone? I just see a blank white rectangle. This sorta reads similar to the conversations from a few months ago about the 1/2 sizes and full sizes being being almost the same and they pad out one of them.

As many of you know I had some significant heart issues this year. Three procedures leading to 5 stents. It took a bit but I’ve been really doing well now and am back on the ice and feeling great. Now today got more good news. Sonogram showed the blockages of my carotid artery dropped from 20% to 10%. Can apply that same 50% drop to the arteries feeding my heart. So happy the dietary changes and meds have worked. I feel like I’ve got my life back!!

Just did a measurement. Hard to tell of course but seems like the 7.5 is longer than the 7. Also, after today's 2 hour skate, the excess foam/padding ridge in the 7.5 is totally unnoticeable.

Whoops I used the wrong img link; fixed. Yeah it seems like the boot is a size 8 and they pad it to bring it down to a 7.5 or something.

How about the larger point. Why aren't people clamoring for better medical facilities in these areas or rinks?

Just a follow-up here; I emailed True about this and here is their response. This difference is expected. "What you are describing is not a defect, just a little difference in production on the half/full sizes. Best way to explain it is with the photo below. This is what our base shell looks like. This is the one piece shell that is under the toe cap/side panel package. In the toe box, the shell of the boot is shaped as shown in the photo below. The plastic toe cap then slides overtop of this piece. On the full sizes, the comfort foam that is used to cover that “lip” is a little thicker than the half sizes. You are just feeling that lip of the shell. I hope that explains what you are feeling and makes sense." Kudos to them for responding so quickly with such detail.

I feel like I've suffered a head injury every time I click into this thread.

Let me start by making a statement, take it how you will, but it is not an attack. You need to learn to argue the points people are making, not what you think you are hearing. NOBODY said a rule change would have prevented what happened. NOBODY said they are opposed to helmet companies making helmets safer. Straw man arguments just lead to people not taking you seriously. What WAS said: There are multiple ways to address most problems. The difference between no helmets and today's helmets is huge, but we are close to the point of diminishing returns. Concussion research evolves but they still don't know everything. Helmets have probably hit the point where they have done all they can to help mitigate, which is not much since many (most? don't have data) concussions aren't from direct impact. What WAS said: Someone who works in a field that uses data and probability feels that rule changes would have a bigger IMPACT (he didn't say it would have prevented it as you accused him of) on many high-risk scenarios. Argue your points as vigorously as you want, but argue against what people are actually saying.

Not sure it helps but this is why I dont remove those ear flaps....