Deke

Stop! This is making too much sense. Let me know when you move to Western Colorado. I'll be your first customer!

Thanks for the the explanation. I've been all over the place with pitches and pivot points. The Easton Mako/CXN's were pitched. I skated various Quads on those at various stupid pitches in addition to re-profiling with pitch because nobody told me (or maybe they didn't know) that that was adding pitch to the existing pitch. Eventually I purchased Step steel for those skates and had them profiled with Quad 1's with the 20mm pivot point removed to make them neutral. They skate great! As screwy as all of those bad setups were I managed to adapt. I am happy with the Quad 1 with the neutral pivot point but curious how putting some rearward pivot point back in would affect my stance.

I think most people understand that pivot and pitch are two different things. But most, including myself, want to know when to use one versus the other. To some extent they are both used to accomplish some of the same goals. So is this a matter of equipment limitations or availability? Maybe the preference of the skate tech?

@Torikkun love this chart! I noticed that I didn't give runner sizes in my reviews so FWIW it was 272. Thanks!

This should probably be it's own topic... IMHO linear crossovers just add a layer of deception. It keeps the defender guessing and if he takes the bait it is easy to get around him. Same with any sport, if you can keep them guessing and really sell it, you slow your opponent and make yourself relatively faster. But don't really understand how this is supposed to relate to profiles. You can do LC's on any profile, can't you?

Hey @SkateWorksPNW, can you say what it is about the Ellipse 0 that you like more now that you have more time on it? I am one that liked the Quad 1 with 0mm pitch on 272 Mako/Step steel after testing on JR's program but didn't get my other sets re-profiled before the program ended. The Quad 2 was really a toss-up though. I still need to find a good mail-in service to get me all setup and so I may as well go with the "future" while I'm at it. Any ideas who I should work with?

Well now that that's over, can anyone recommend someone that can do ProSharp profiles for me in Southwest Colorado? I wasn't quite done yet... 🙁

Profile: Detroit 1 Steel: Marsblade on Mako Skate Hollow: FBV 90/75 About me: In my 60's and have played since high school. Good skater playing 3 to 4 drop-ins per week during the the winter months only. Baseline: "Similar" to Quad Zero NOT from ProSharp. Did nothing particularly well and later found out there were some issues with the blend from profile to toe. I should also note that the Marsblade is a different animal and is best at techniques that power through the heel. Detroit 1 Review: As I mentioned above the Marsblade likes heel things. This was really an experiment to see if the super long heel radius of the Detroit 1 would compliment the heel rocker of the Marsblade. The result was "kinda". The Detroit 1 promotes (and demands) long strides and so does the Marsblade. From that standpoint they are good together but at the front end I felt the 10' radius was too much for me. However, and this is a big however, I was surprised that a profile with radii that long worked as well as it did! Acceleration and mobility might have been just OK, but speed, stability and glide were very good or excellent. I'm not sure how much longer I am going to continue with the Marsblade, but if I do keep going I think I would try a Quad 1 or Quad 2 based my experience with them on standard holders. Acceleration: 2 Mobility: 3 Speed: 4 Stability 5 See my Quad 1 review See my Quad 2 review

Profile: Quad 2, with all 20mm of built-in pitch/offset removed Steel: Step Steel in Mako CXN holder Hollow: FBV 90/75 About me: In my 60's and have played since high school. Good skater playing 3 to 4 drop-ins per week during the the winter months only. Baseline: CXN Steel with unknown "speed" Quad from well known shop. Short radius at toe, very long radius at the heel. Very (over) pitched. They were stable but not remarkably fast. Mobility was limited and acceleration was poor. Quad 1 Review: Go here for my Quad 1 review Quad 2 Review: Just came from the Quad 1 and my immediate reaction was these are fast! If you are already moving these things promote a great long stride and glide. Powerful. Good acceleration from the glide also. Acceleration off the line is not as quick as Quad 1 and mobility is OK. Speed and stability are excellent. This may be a little too much radius for me overall so I am going back to the Quad 1 to verify my feelings. In my case mobility may be more important than speed. Tough decision. BTW, backward is very fast and stable on these as well. Even acceleration from stopped is very good. Would like a little more lateral mobility though. Acceleration: 3 Mobility: 3 Speed: 5 Stability 5

Profile: Quad 1, with all 20mm of built-in pitch/offset removed Steel: Step Steel in Mako CXN holder Hollow: FBV 90/75 About me: In my 60's and have played since high school. Good skater playing 3 to 4 drop-ins per week during the the winter months only. Baseline: CXN Steel with unknown "speed" Quad from well known shop. Short radius at toe, very long radius at the heel. Very (over) pitched. They were stable but not remarkably fast. Mobility was limited and acceleration was poor. Quad 1 Review: I needed just a little bit of time to adjust to the neutral profile after coming from the overly pitched baseline profile. The result for the Quad 1 is quick off the line, excellent mobility, with good speed and stability. Top speed can be limited unless you delay the toe-off. Great all around profile! Wow! I could stop right here but I am going to try the Quad 2 and see where that goes. Edit: Backward feels great on these. I would probably give the same ratings below for both forward and back. Acceleration: 4 Mobility: 5 Speed: 4 Stability 4 Quad 2 Review: Go here for my Quad 2 review

Refresh me on the spacer numbers. Which is which? I was one of the early users and only have full movement which is probably the smallest. Any other feedback other than OK and much better? What was your son feeling?

It's funny but it seems that design can go down two different paths before anyone realizes any results. On one hand, we design around what we already know or what we are already capable of, technique-wise. Technique doesn't really change though, so the results are incremental. On the other hand, you can introduce something completely different where the physics are better, but will require a change in technique. In this case the results could be an order of magnitude better. Just think if we only 1) understood the physics better AND 2) were willing to leave our comfort zone, what would the evolutionary path look like. Gotta admit this is the only reason I tried the Marsblade.

@Nateinnet I would start with the same 10' and 1/2" he is on now. However, I would also start with a neutral pitch, see what happens then go from there. This way there is really only one variable. In my own experience I ended up with a neutral pitch after having skated "very" pitched forward previously. I am beginning to develop the opinion that many people, including myself have way overdone the forward pitch thing. With the Marsblade I think it is more about finding that sweet spot that makes it click. It seems to excel at anything involving a heel pump. All said, the conservative part of me agrees with others about doing all of this with a second pair of skates. @SkateWorksPNW my experience was opposite as your clients. I found that my previous "long" profile (similar to Quad 2) didn't really do much with the Marsblade. It just kind of felt the same with or without the Marsblade. I ended up with a Quad Zero. On the Marsblade the Quad Zero feels like there is more steel on the ice than it does in a traditional fixed holder but with the benefits of the shorter radii. It just sort of skates longer. I know that you didn't really care for the Marsblade but as I said it before, I'd love to hear more feedback about your experiences.

I have been liking the Quad-0. Previously on my old setup I had a quad from another sharpener with "very long radiuses." which I like a lot. I skated yesterday with that profile on the Marsblades and was disappointed. They felt the same as the old setup (on CXN's) and seemed to cancel the benefit of the Marsblade. I switched back to the Quad-0 later and feeling was back. All this is at neutral pitch which I have had to adapt to. From just this little bit of experience I think the profile and pitch may be more critical to the Marsblade than anyone thinks. Some of us may have been skating on setups that don't translate to the Marsblade. It takes a lot of time, energy and $$ to sort through this and I have been fortunate to able to do this. My wish is that Marsblade would test the extremes in an controlled test with very good skaters to establish the parameters that work well. I realize that we are all part of this development but there really isn't a way to use all of the random feedback. I would also like to hear more from sharpeners such as @Nicholas G about their experiences on this. That was the first I heard (above) about people liking the Zuperior. @Nicholas G have any of your skaters that initially didn't like the Marsblade made changes that worked for them?

@Nicholas G have you tried them? Why is it so important for you to shoot this down? A lot of people are looking for hands-on feedback.