smcgreg

For now, on the 254. As I noted, his glide seemed longer and he was stable fore-aft. Going to stick with current parameters for a couple skates to see how he adapts. He doesn't feel as agile right now, so, will chip away at more low hanging fruit with the next change. First would likely be another minus 0.5 on pitch. Since he thought they felt like tanks, I didn't think a longer holder would help much.

Following up to this reply to help maintain some continuity. Today, my son skated on his TF9s in two back to back games for the first time since profiling to 10 ft and -1 pitch. As a reminder, he hated the stock profile out of the box and was miserable after one stick adn pucks. As reference, he skated on his Makos in a game yesterday and decided to dive in head first for two games today for a number of reasons. This was a fairly high level skate (college recruitment), but not at the AAA 15U level. Since he skated one game yesterday, the Makos were fresh in his mind and TF9s were brand new and effectively novel to him since the profile was different. I'll break it down by things I think made a difference. 1. 10 ft radius - Much better than stock. He was visibly "teetering" back and forth on the stock profile at sticks and pucks. It was probably a combination of things, but he commented he felt like there wasn't enough steel under his toes and heels. No such comment today and no "teetering". 2. minus 1 pitch - Again, much better than stock. He commented that he still felt like he was being pushed forward a bit, but could probably get used to it. Will give it a couple more skates. Other harder to attribute observations: 3. Power transfer - He commented that he felt more powerful on them. As support, after playing two back to back games, he felt less tired than the day before playing only one game on his Makos yesterday. As corroboration, watching him, I thought he was going further on each stride. I commented on this to a friend before his comments. So, not that this would be a specific True property, I just think the Mako footbed is breaking down and he's just getting better power transfer, resulting in greater stride efficiency and less fatigue. 4. He said they feel like "tanks". Heavier, beffier, less agile. They are heavier than Makos, but as I've stated before he needs more protection, so, any more protective skate will likely be heavier. at this point, this is his only complaint and he accepts that nothing will feel like the Makos from here on out. So, need to adjust and see if he can get the agility from these on top of the other benefits. Finally, the fact that he skated two back to back games without any comfort issues in brand new skates is almost unheard of in any other brand, than Makos, I expect. The only comfort complaint was a bit of rubbing at the cuff because they come up higher than Makos. He's going to try higher socks next time to see if that fixes it, but if not, I'll heat and roll out the cuff. Still, pretty impressive to get that knid of comfort/fit for $600.

Are you saying the back is 9' and the front is 10'? That seems odd. My son also felt like there was steel missing under his heel, but I thought that was because it was a standard 9'.

Yet to be determined. He hasn't had a chance to skate on the new profile (10 ft -1) yet. I was hoping to get it out of the way before things picked back up, but skating got real busy again all of a sudden. So, we'll see.

It would have been nice ($$), but 1) he said his toes were crunched. For a kid going down two sizes from his 6.5 makos that he says are hurting his feet, it seemed risky. 2) He would have needed to go down holder size as well, which I've discussed before. So, it just didn't seem like a good idea. I think the 6s will fit perfect for a while.

To follow up on this and our sizing experience, again, my son is 6.5 in Mako. We got him 6.5 without sizing, because it was for Xmas. Out of the box he thought they were perfect. AFter baking they were clearly too big. At the store, my skate guy, who is very good, thought that a 6 might even be too big, so, he tried a 5.5. ($$$ if only...) Again, out of the box, the 5.5. actually felt perfect to him except for a couple spots that could have been locally heated. After baking though.... too small. So, he ultimately settled on 6, which he loves (boot wise), but the disconnect between 1) other manufacturers and 2) unbaked fit vs baked fit makes it imperative to actually try the things on after baking to assure correct fit. I was very surprised that they got tighter after baking with the 5.5.s, but I guess that's a testament to the material used.

When you say "shorter cut", you mean boot height? I wasn't sure, but my son is coming from Makos and thought the boots were great and Makos are pretty low as well. So, just wondering what that meant.

As others have noted below, it's not just international. I had a package shipped from Seattle for my business the week before Thanksgiving (US) and they shipped USPS against my wishes. It has been "in transit" since Nov 28. It was an urgent shipment, which compounded my anger. My wife sent out 40 Christmas cards on Dec 15th, most domestic, and only a fraction of them have been received. It's a combination of Covid affecting the workforce (less labor available) and the budget cuts enacted over the past year to cripple the USPS They were pretty effective in their objective.

OK.That's not a standard Supreme pitch, so, that gives more credence to your observation. Makes more sense now. From my measurements though, I'd approximate the TF pitch to still be +2 or more. I was doing it at home though, so, again, people from a shop may have more accurate info. Good luck.

I haven't skated on Supremes in ages, but given the measurements I made on my son's TF9s in conjunction with the rest of the comments regarding pitch in this thread, I'm hard pressed to believe Supremes have a more aggressive pitch than TFs. I would skate on proper ice before increasing the pitch on them. I'm sure others will chime in with more quantitative response, but the TFs (at least the 9s, I just got) have a very aggressive ptich. In fact, the most common complaint I've read regarding the TFs is the pitch is too aggressive fore most to become comfortable with and switching to TUUK holders fixes the issue immediately.

Yeah, with all the negative comments, it was hard to sort the wheat from the chaff... 😉 He was so grumpy it took quite a lot to get all of the issues out of him in a specific manner for diagnostic purposes. The one comment.... "he couldn't control them" makes me think you're right. That after a profile and dialing things in more to his liking, they won't feel as heavy. Compared to the Makos though, they are tanks, so, I also won't be surprised if they still seem heavy. It doesn't matter though. He was going to have a broken foot sooner or later if he didnt' get another skate or start wearing shot blockers. The latter wasn't going to happen, so, beefier skates are a godsend in that regard. We'll see. Probably won't get profiled until midweek, so, he's back to Makos for a couple skates.

1) Right, I addressed this. That's a fairly easy fix if that's the only issue. 2) Ok, I didn't realize this. Theoretically, if the balance point is correct, then this shouldn't matter. Of course, not all things hold up in practice relative to theory. 3) I'd forgotten about this. I remember when it first came out, this was talked about, but I had forgotten. I'll need to go back and learn more about this. In closing, when I got Makos when they came out, I tried to adapt to the aggressive pitch becuase I believed it was supposed to be better for me. I gave it more than a year and finally relented. Once I went to a negative pitch on my Makos I was immediately better even after a year of "adaptation". I'm old, so, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, but my son arguably has more hours skating in his set up than I did before getting makos, so, he has some heavily ingrained preferences, which work quite well for him. Thanks for the feedback and insight. I'll need to look into the asymmetrical thing again.

Yeah, I guess that's easy for somebody coming from TUUKS, but the holder, per se, shouldn't matter if all of the parameters can be matched with profile. I think that was althoma1's point earlier in this thread, that if we went to CXNs, it would be the fastest way to get exactly what he wants. Having messed with profiles over the years to replicate the feel of different skates, I'm pretty sure we can get there with the profile. Once that's nailed down, then we never have to worry about swapping holders. I'm just not a fan of that approach for a number of reasons. There's nothing inherently bad about the Shift holder is there? Something I should be aware of? Thanks,

Compared to putting on Makos in a lockerroom full of people you don't know?........ Probably anything helps. I get your point though.

Having already swapped holders when we first switched from Bauer to Makos, I don't want to go that route again if other options are available. Since I've thought about it the past day or so, a negative profile should fix the issue, or at least one. Longer radius will fix another one If it were me, it would be a different story. I can/like doing stuff on the cheap and making it work. For a kid that will be traveling without parents and on his own soon, not the best. Plus he was looking forward to not having guys look at his skates and think he's the weird guy every time he goes into a new lockerroom.

Yeah, that was part of the thought equation for me. Actually, when Easton went out of business years ago, the thought was we'd buy a bunch of skates to fill the gap until something was available as an alternative in a few years. I assumed it would be Bauer, but ended up being True. So, now the time has come. At the end of the day, a negative profile or alternative holder is a simple solution if the boot works, especially at the TF9 price point.

So, from my understanding, CXN steel is no longer available. That's why I accelerated the move to True or another skate. I found the last set of Step CXNs I could find in N.A. in Sept. That steel is done. Since Step was purchased by CCM, they stopped making the CXN... or at least that's what I was lead to believe in the Fall. I get what you're saying though. Going from Mako straight to another skate without boot issues would be unheard of in any other retail skate, I expect. Especially since he has flat feet and has had issues with other boots he's tried for roller hockey. For the weight, the other thing that has been a concern is a puck off the foot in Makos. He's a defenseman and it was a matter of time before he broke a foot at the level he plays at in those skates. They're like running shoes. So, a beafier boot or shot blockers are going to add weight, no two ways about it. So, in some ways, a necessary evil. So, I'm in agreement with your assessment for the most part. As I told him when he came off the ice with a grumpy face..... if the boot feels good, everything else can be fixed with profile or different holder. In fact, the profile change I wrote in my last response will fix 90% of the issues, if not all, I expect. Agility is an issue right now though at the level he plays. Increased weight won't increase agility, but we'll see if the weight perception was more about a skate that didnt' respond the way he expected as opposed to actually being heavier. Thanks for the feedback. You in particular have always been very helpful in Mako related issues, so, much appreciated. Happy New Year.

To renew my comments on this skate based on the experience with my son. I guess I should mention his particulars: 15 yr old. HS/AAA caliber. Skates 5+ times per week. Old skate is Mako. So, we got him 6.5 TF9s for Christmas and determined those were too big. So, we had to go down a size (or more, since the Makos were starting to hurt). We went with 6s after trying 5.5s as well. After baking he was thrilled. They felt as comfy and well-fitting as his Makos. So, he was excited to skate on them for the first time. First impressions after the first skate, he was less than thrilled. I've been very rigorous in keeping my expectations to myself. I assumed there would be some major differences to deal with, but didn't want to influence his impressions and thought some things might be different, but better with adaptation. Anyway.... 1. Boot was still comfy, so, no issue there. Coming from Makos, that's a pretty strong testament. Not one complaint on the first skate after coming from the most comfortable skate ever made... (retail). 2. Boot seemed heavy. (I anticipated this one). 3. Said if felt like going from rollerblades back to ice.... no for-aft stability. 4. Turns were good. 5. Shot sucked. (again, I anticipated this since there is more height off the ice than his Makos). 6. Said if telt like ski boots when you walk and you're kicked forward/pushed forward. Differences that are obvious aside from the boot that can explain some of these observations. 1. Pitch seems aggressive on the TF9s. We have been profiling the Makos with a negative 2 to reduce the aggressiveness of the CXN pitch and make it more like a Vapor. Measuring with a tape measure, there is still an extra 1/4in difference from back to front vs the Makos, so, that explains #6 above. 2. It seems the stock profile is around 9ft? Coming from an 11 ft on him Makos, that would explain #3 above, I think. This might also explain why turns were better #4? Shorter radius should make for better tight turns, correct? 3. the height difference compared to his Makos is about 1/2 in at the back and about 1/4 in at the front (measure with tape measure, so, grain of salt). So, this would explain #5 due to stick being too short. So.... it seems like most of the issues can be addressed with a profile (11 ft and -1 pitch) and lengthening the stick 1/4 to 1/2 in. The only issue remaining would be weight. ..... So, the dilemma is, stick with them and profile or start the search for a different skate that fits (tall order) and weighs less. Sorry for lots of words, but hopefully it helps others who may be dealing with similar issues.

True.... or.... it could be that he liked the longer steel. Just like I like a 3/4 radius and he can't stand anything shallower than a 1/2. And he likes an 11 ft and I like a 10. He likes the Alpha and I like a Covert. Yours is a pretty emphatic statement for something as nebulous as what we're discussing without any knowledge of the underlying facts. Others have stated they like a longer runner as well. Who knows why? Just sayin.....

You may be right about the amount of blade available for contact with strides, but given your impression about stability, it could still be a factor. Greater stability on the support foot could result in greater stride length even if there isn't any more steel practically available for the push. You get the same effect, just for a different reason. Unfortunately my son is very attuned to such things and will pick up on it immediately I am sure. My daughter on the other hand could skate equally well on a pair of butter knives or top end skates without knowing the difference. My point is, whatever the underlying reason, I am certain it will be noticeable (I know I would notice it). I am of the same mind as your recommendation, but I just hate swapping holders. It invariably leads to rivet issues. Oh well, I should have known it wouldn't be simple to just swap over. Thanks,

As usual, I really don't know much other than my own experience and in particular, for my kids trying to figure out how to optimize things for them. I just know every time my son's gone up a size where the steel got longer, he loved it. So, going from his 5.5 Makos to 6.5s he went up again and was happy. At this point, I'm not sure if going down in holder length might be better? Agility is so much more important than top end speed once they're into the Midget years. So, I'm open to it being a beneficial change, I just don't think he'll see it that way. So, question for those experienced in such things, would the difference in 254 and 263 be substantial enough to drill new holes if he wanted a 263 on size 6 TF9s? I'm not enthused about changing holders, because that opens a whole new can of worms, but if going that route, I assume the holes won't line up, so, is it even possible to put a 263 on instead of a 254? Thanks for the input.

Hmm... really? both of us wear 6.5 in Makos. He actually took my last pair when he grew into that size. The Mako 6.5s are 263s, so, I assumed that was standard for the size. Thanks for setting me straight. I'm sure we'll still need to do something about it, because even though I won't mention it, I know he'll notice the shorter runner as he uses very long strides for his size. I appreciate the input.

OK, so, been a while since I contributed. Just gave my son some TF9s for Chrstmas since he was on his last (our last ) pair of Makos and even steel was becoming impossible to find. A couple notes to start 1) He was 6.5 in Mako and commenting that he felt they were getting small. He got 6.5 TF9s as a present. After baking, he is confident the 6.5 TF9s are too large. I think it has been a consistent theme in this thread that the TF series should size down (so, 1/2 size or more smaller than other skates you are coming from). 2) Holder (and therefore runner) length. I was not aware of this issue until last night when planning how to assess any problem areas that might come up. Since his Makos are near the end, he needs to move to his new skates ASAP while things are kind of slow over Christmas. Now I see that if he sticks with stock setup, he will be on a shorter holder and therefore less steel.... ugghhhh. Why did they do this? For agility? Just curious, I would assume there must be a reason. A 254 on a 6.5 is just too short even if we put an 11ft radius on it. I'm not sure what the holder will be on the 6, but I assume not shorter? I really don't want to swap holders as that creates rivet issues, but jeez, also don't want less steel on the ice. I'm positive he will notice and not be happy. 3) On the positive side, the finish seems much more polished than what I've seen with the customs. 4) After baking, he commented they felt as nice as his Makos, just too long. So, that's encouraging. Anyway, if anybody has any idea why they went with shorter holders/runners, I'd like to know. Thanks,

haha... yeah.... Seriously, there were so many responses (kudos to you) and the only one missing was me. No worries. I'll try and get over to your site to check things out, but an easier way to convince skeptics is to put the references in their face. As scientist, it's the main form of communication and the best weapon in an argument, so, if you have 'em, throw them around.... 😉

True... to some extent. But skating is akin to a hybrid between shooting and running. There are lots of degrees of freedom in shooting, but the DoF that relate to puck velocity and accuracy are fairly limited, so, stick flex has a clear and distinctive effect. On the other end of the scale would be running where the DoF are greater, and in particular, those that dictate running velocity are more variable and numerous than shooting the puck. One could even argue that skating DoF are even more numerous than running. Probably more importantly, the "signal to noise ratio" in skating is lower than running. Sorry to mix metaphors, but what I mean by that is, running can be described fairly simply by drawing the analogy to a pogo stick. Skating? not so much. One can skate pretty fast simply by "punching the ice" and having horrible mechanics (I won't use an example that would be unflattering) or one can skate fast by having a very efficient stride (e.g Quinn Hughes). You really don't those kind of discrepancies in running, where the spring-mass model is more descriptive. So,... my point is, skating stride is a very complicated thing and it's hard for me to blindly accept that a mechanical intervention will have a huge effect. Of course, the clap skate is an example of a substantial effect as a result of mechanical intervention, but the amount of time a hockey player spends going in one direction at top speed is almost infinitesimal in the grand scheme of the various stride manipulations that are used..... ugghh... I'm droning.... sorry. My point is this, shooting flex is a nice analogy, but not quite on the mark. Too simplistic. Sorry for the stream of consciousness.