VegasHockey

I have an extra I can send you if you want to do a tear down.

In hockey, unlike football, injuries are rarely from initial head impact acceleration, its the secondary and third impacts that cause the most harm. If you read this article they mention “The front location is where kids hit their head the most and at high energies, so that front pad plays a big role,” Rowson said. “The lower-rated helmets would test considerably better simply by reducing the stiffness of that front padding.” Based on the methodology they are using to test hockey helmets you can see the serious error here in the way they are rating helmets. https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2019/03/ictas-youthfootballratings.html I am also not saying that HECC or other methods are any better though. There is serious faults with HECC testing as well. The helmet's performance is evaluated by testing the chinstrap for strength and elongation and by testing the impact absorption properties of the helmet liner. All tests are performed using helmets attached to headforms that simulate different sizes of the human head. For the retention system, the helmet is placed on a headform and a load is applied using a device to simulate the chin bone structure. The strength and elongation properties of the helmet strap are evaluated. Dropping a helmet (with the headform inside) onto a flat hard surface tests the impact absorption properties. When dropped onto the flat surface, instruments in the headform measure the force transmitted through the helmet to the headform. This test is performed at ambient, hot and cold conditions. At each of these conditions the helmet must absorb a minimum amount of energy in order to meet the requirements of the standard. In general, we need a better way of testing helmet for hockey. If anything, I think MIPS is doing good with their testing currently. However even they need to make some changes as well. https://helmets.org/mips.htm https://helmets.org/mipstestpresentation.pdf

To be honest and fair. I am not sure other helmets would have faired much better than the TRUE helmet. Perhaps there would have been less result from the initial impact with other helmets but the MIPS design is more focused on the secondary and third impacts that usually result in the game of hockey as compared to many other sports. This is why the VT study is insufficient as it doesn't take rotational injuries into account and focuses solely on a single impact despite their claims "Our impact tests evaluate a helmet's ability to reduce linear and rotational acceleration of the head resulting from a range of head impacts a hockey player might experience during play." If you look at these ridiculous ratings they rate the CCM 710 and 310 helmet at 0 stars. Same with the Warrior Alpha helmets as well. Yet the Bauer 2100 has 2 stars......

VT testing is insufficient for hockey. I appreciate them trying, but until they change their testing methods their ranking are essentially useless.

Yeah. I am a HUGE fan.

This is the official retail P90TM curve, though it can change once it's released via general availability. Its not as max height as most other blades and slightly less aggressive as compared to a P28

Firs good for me too. Ventilation is nice. Helmet is light when paired with a Re-Akt cage. Probably not ideal for everyone though as adjustability of the helmet is somewhat limited.

Its actually pretty easy to sand off the grip and to reapply it. The biggest issue is having connections to get the grip coating liquid since it isn't made in enterprise level of volume. A lot of stick manufacturers have to pre-buy a year or more supply in order for the factories to manufacturer the chemical. This is why many companies are slowly changing their application to incorporating the grip into the graphics wrap for sticks. Warrior has been doing this and TRUE just started to do this too with the AX9. I dont think CCM or Bauer are, yet. Supposedly this is also helping to shed weight as well. I forgot where I read/saw info on it but they mentioned this helped Warrior get the Alpha DX down to under 400 grams, among other things.

I haven't had that issue and I have a bunch of them in my garage which gets VERY hot. Which model is this?

When I get back home I will take a pic of it next to a P28, P29/92, and a P90T and you will see they aren't nearly the same. Does this make sense? No. But I dont work for CCM so I didnt pick the naming convention.

No. Not the same.

Yup. We have that. The main issue is the structural integrity of the cap is diminished when you heat and punch it as you are technically warping it. Do you have like a bunion or something on your toe rubbing? Crooked toe? I am trying to understand whats hitting.

Crazy. I didn't even notice until the game the other day. These pros swapping sticks so often is very strange to me.

Thats a tough spot to modify, heat changes the composition of the toe box and can weaken it and its not really possible to "punch it" without heat. You may want to try and take a dremel and see if you can shave off a little of the inside of the to cap. Proceed at our own risk.

I have been testing this blade and love it. I think its going to quickly become the new "go to" pattern to replace the P92/P29.

When did Johnny starts using CCM?

I bet his equipment manager loves dealing with all of his constant changes. Lol

The shop doing the order needs to request it specifically for you.

My understanding is this was before they had the same technology released in the Supreme line, they are now stamping them differently.

Does your local Pure Hockey store use a ProSharp?

ADV construction with Supreme shaft shape.

It seems very possible. Bauer has partnered heavily with ProSharp so I can imagine CCM might be looking to find an way into the sharpening market without having to buy out a big company. Sparx would fit perfectly into that category. Also, I noticed a while ago that a lot of CCM reps also do sales for Sparx as well.

They have a lot of big things going on right now so production times and warranty stuff is a little backed up.

Has anyone ever determined how to disassemble a Sparx ring? We got a new batch in the mail and one of them cannot be read by the machine at all. It just gives an error message. When I scan it with a Mifare NFC reader the data seems corrupt when compared to other rings. I want to take the backing off another ring and swap it over but cannot seem to find out how the rings disassemble the ring. This is what the data on a good ring looks like: The other ring just gives an error and says the data is corrupted.

The cost ends up the same.