flip12

It depends on the model. There are certain models that are still sought after, such as Micron Megas, Daoust, and Bauer Supremes from later in the range that you mentioned. Another one is the original Nike Air Accel line. I've seen mid-range models sell for over $100 on eBay. Air Accel Elites are pretty much guaranteed to sell on eBay eventually. If you search for what recent ones have gone for, you might have an idea where to list yours. Those sound like beauties, can you post some pictures?

Do you follow any preparation steps to avoid different scans due to potential differences in foot volume from swelling? I've often heard feet swell during the day, depending on what they've been through. If your feet have been through different activity days up to the moment of the scan, is it possible a little swelling is bumping you over the threshold from Supreme to Nexus? Just a thought.

Who asked you for data? I asked you for an opinion based on a close reading of the test's writeup rather than a critique that basically amounts to "this data must be garbage because if it isn't then I can't believe the marketing that says this new and improved helmet design is really new and improved, because features!" That's not an argument that gets you very far. It should be clear that companies have their own interests first, which entails marketing everything as an improvement. Without data, how can we assess if there is any improvement or even a consistent level of performance? A pass/fail test doesn't help there. A lot of people in this thread have attacked the VT study's data without understanding what the data even is. People want to hate this effort but for reasons that aren't really accurate. That makes me wonder if there's retaliation because other interests are feeling threatened and we end up hearing propaganda that isn't an accurate depiction of what the STAR rating system is. It isn't without its flaws, but a lot of the supposed flaws are non-existent or were applicable to earlier iterations but have been improved on since the first STAR rating results; rotational impact being the biggie. I don't see @BenBreeg arguing that the STAR system is law, but rather that it's a step towards a better idea of the complicated assessment of risk when it comes to head injuries. That's the problem with research--it's not really as cut and clean as it's often presented in the pop press, and that pop aspect is meant to feed consumers the food for thought that they want. The 1-5 stars are a shrewd way to play it both ways, but I'll maintain that that has upsides and downsides. @stick9 you should go back and carefully reread what comments you're replying to because they are full of misapprehensions. @OldTrainerGuy, what's the downside of using a football headform? How is a football headform not suited for a hockey helmet? It would seem both would be abstract representations of average human heads and football helmets and hockey helmets are meant to actually protect the same actual heads in practice. Is there a response from HECC and CSA explaining their misgivings with STAR? I'm not sure if I missed it before, but what about the VT lab's analysis of rotational impact is seen as insufficient to test for rotational impact by the certification boards you're familiar with?

1. Sure, you can do that, go ahead. But that's completely different from what the VT STAR ratings are. They are peer-reviewed studies, which is all about test the degree of questionability of not only data, but everything involved in a study: background, procedure, results, theory, etc. 2. Peer-review acts as somewhat of a guard against junk science. Like concussions, there is no absolute guarantee of preventing junk science. The best we can do is develop standards and procedures that do the most to eliminate potential sources of error. In that sense, the VT lab has already been vetted in a certain arena (a quite powerful journal, as it happens), which does mean the data is good and valid to that degree. 3. I think I know what you're saying, but I have to substitute another word for likelihood to make it make sense. There is always a likelihood of sustaining a concussion. That is, there is always a non-zero probability that you will sustain a concussion going about your daily routine. Playing a contact sport increases that risk or likelihood. There is no way to prevent it. The facts of movement and having a brain entail the likelihood of sustaining a concussion. What I think makes the most sense is, 'VT _ that (helmets that achieve a 4 or 5 star rating according to) their rating system are not guaranteed to prevent concussions,' (indeed, the likelihood of there being cases of concussions in the better rated helmets is high if not absolutely a guarantee). 4. I can't answer that...if it was a question? At least not exhaustively. I think one angle of support for the VT study that I for one am happy to see I'm not alone in taking in this thread, is that I don't so much put faith in it as I see it as a positive development. I think it's great that there's an objective, transparent analysis of the degree of protection afforded by the most important piece of protective equipment in the sport. I'm surprised there aren't more people that welcome that transparency and look ahead to when further dialogue in the vein of the VT STAR system can help produce helmets that have scientifically analyzed and vetted design principles. This makes me wonder, are the helmet certification procedures and results available for similar analysis and commentary? If so, that's great, and I wish there would be more cross-comparisons between the VT lab's work and what the prior approaches have been. If not, then we need to have a conversation about what's more dangerous: people buying a helmet because they think they're protected by an oversimplified safety seal (my critique of the VT study, but I do understand marketing is a huge factor in research these days) that is the result of an objective analysis, or people buying the helmet they think looks the coolest and heck, it's certified so it must be good. I get not wanting to misguide buyers into helmets that don't fit (notice VT says "genetics" will be a significant factor in eventual concussion occurrence--head shape falls under that umbrella somewhat) based on them wanting to pick out the highest rated helmet regardless of anything else. But is it ok to have manufacturers keep pumping out ever more expensive helmets with an ever increasing list of features without the consumer getting some indication of whether or not those design improvements are actually working or not? @OldTrainerGuy what is a football head form? And how does VT's assessment of rotational impact forces fall short?

That would be my guess too, I just notice heel lifts more often than toe. After spotting it on Matthews I noticed JVR also has toe lifts.

P28 has a big heel curve on it to. I thought the difference between P28 and Fisher Pro was smoother transitions from heel to toe, both in rocker and curve.

No amount of incredulity is going to disprove data that are presented with a rigorously described procedure. If you’re unsure what the data mean then show a critique of the tests based on a thorough reading of the paper.

Thanks for the great replies so far. Part of what's been puzzling for me, I think, was I started out with a gross oversimplification of the issue of fit. Like I said in my original post, I went with the approach of 'performance fit' ≈ smallest skate you can squeeze into, which might hurt a lot at first and only a little later on (or you just get used to it?), but you'll skate better for being in a snugger boot. What I've found is much more complicated. I've tried from size 11 Graf down to 9.5 and 10 Graf (with some other older boots mixed in: Mission Amp Flyweights, Mega Air 90s, 652 Pump Tacks, as well as MLX in both 10 and 11). So far, the biggest issue seems to be a lot of the smaller skates weren't wide enough in the forefoot, essentially causing my feet and lower legs to seize on load, just when I needed them to immediately fire, and/or were too short in the heel pocket, so instead of the ankle pads sitting on top of my heel (calcaneus?) they were compressing the most on the round profile of my heel and would seem to wobble willy nilly rather than roll with my foot's movement in the ankle joint. Essentially, I could still skate pretty well if I taped the tendon guard in the smaller boots, masking the horrendous decouple of the boot and my heel, but I didn't need to do that in the bigger boots. Especially the size 11 703s seemed perfectly suited for my feet. I had no pain, and felt both 100% stable and 100% free in my range of motion. When I drop down to size 10 703s, I have to force my foot in a bit, but once it's in, it's not really painful, it's just the issue of the volume being too low. All of these skates I've picked up for cheap over the last few years, so it's been shooting in the dim, rather than going to a shop for a proper fitting. But trying them out has greatly contributed to my appreciation for the importance of fit in key locations where I was completely unaware of their crucial role prior to this process. I've still got a couple more size 10s to try: MLX rebaked with thinner insoles, and Graf 701s, because they're better lasted for my feet at that size than the 703s and with much smaller ankle pads leading me to wonder if the random rolling might not be as big of an issue in them.

I've been wondering a lot lately about what is meant by getting a skate that is a 'performance fit.' My reading, probably deeply mistaken, was that it meant suffering a little with a boot you can barely cram your foot into at first because eventually it will be perfect as the boot breaks in, allowing the feet and their boots to settle into the optimum balance between performance and comfort. I've been trying different sizes, from my previous size which felt pretty roomy, to a full size down. I'm just not seeing my notion of performance fit being realized by this smaller-is-better experiment, and after failing to find a clear discussion of it via search I thought, why not ask the brass on here. So what exactly is 'performance fit?'

No. Because your cynicism is spot on.

Some of Gretz’s gloves also had one or two white backhand rolls.

The triangle-perforated steel debuted on the Vapor 8, I believe. I had Vapor 8s with that steel and grey Tuuk Custom+'s. I think they stuck around and were also stock on Vapor 10s, like @BenBreeg mentioned, and Nike Ignite 1s. With the Vapor XX, the perforation pattern changed as @Monty22 pointed out, matching the form of the LightSpeed holder visually.

You can definitely see it, now that you mention it. What I noticed but hadn't seen before was Matthews' toe lifts. I'm used to spotting heel lifts or heel and toe lifts rather than lifts just on the toes. Interesting.

A lot of danglers used to use skinny heel blades (see M. Lemieux, D. Savard, Zhamnov, Kovalev, Viktor Kozlov, even young Datsyuk) which has me wondering if some perceived a difference in puck feel back when sticks or at least blades were wood. The physics of sticks has changed drastically since their time, though. I think when Datsyuk switched from his teardrop blade profile to a goalie blade profile and still managed to dangle the world’s best while reaping the defensive and puck challenge benefits, other players started to try it out with their own patterns. The night and day switch in stick materials and engineering that happened at the same time, or perhaps rather that Datsyuk was the first to prominently exploit, enabled the best of both worlds (good feel and lots of blade face for winning pucks) that max height blades can offer. Having said that, I’ve never had as much success intercepting passes as I have when I’ve played with Kovalev or Leino Pro patterns. They have skinny heels, but the max length seems to catch people off guard. Just my armchair theory on the historical change from skinny to fat heel blades.

I'm not superstitious, but maybe McDavid should go back to the original JetSpeed graphics on his skates for next year. Also, check out Kassian going two eyelets down on his Trues!!

Another potential explanation is the difference in the boots' cut patterns. AS1's are high rise, while Trues are low rise. This will definitely have an effect on biomechanics. Stability could be a different phenomenon (holders, boot fit from toe to talus). Is there a difference in negative space in the boots? Holders will definitely have an effect, but so will other factors.

I wasn't doubting, just saying that nano particles were in the stick mix for a while there and then they were gone again. Not that this would be the exact same application, but that it isn't a completely foreign idea for the hockey stick market. I was also hoping you would chime in, as our resident composites guru. @Nicholas G, I said sprinkles because that's how I remembered this graphic visualization of the added carbon nanotubes from the 2006 Easton catalog. I included the full spread for reference to the marketing of that stick which came to mind when reading about Kode's use of nano.

The idea of adding nano sprinkles to the resin has been tried before, not with shabby results, on the Easton CNT Stealth. There was a lot of praise for that stick, especially for its durability, which some speculated was good enough that Easton killed it because it didn’t have the appropriate obsolescence time for its pricepoint. I wonder how this would compare. I’m not into the vanilla, strawberry, and chocolate curves Kode offers, so I doubt I’ll try it (I’m more of a butter pecan or real pistacio guy).

CCM’s lie numbers aren’t reliable: p46 is lower than p28, which is corrected in this chart because the p28 isn’t really a lie 5...(I suspect Bjugstad got everyone calling it a 5 and it just stuck). But the chart also has its lie problems: p14 and p46 are the same lie on the first half of the blade, so they’re not really going to play 1.5 lie points different, p29 is lower than Bauer’s p92 so should probably be 5.5 or 6 rather than 6.5; just for a few examples.

I tried some kind of cloth grip tape the first couple of times I used my digital palm gloves and they started to wear very fast from it. I don't think it was Renfrew, so maybe that made a difference. I would have gotten Renfrew if it were available at the local shop, but they simply didn't have it. In my case, I'm not too worried about the palms ripping though, because I love everthing about the gloves except for the digital (it feels knotty against the hand) and some less than desirable durability issues with the binding and exterior. The fit and feel of the glove otherwise is the best I've ever had, so I'll just get them repalmed with some other material and spruced up when they need it. I've read a lot of people love their digital gloves, though.

Although @chippa13‘s line would go great in some metal lyrics!

Also, it’s curious it’s called a 5.5, because it’s lower than or equal to the lie on the P28 from heel to toe. For me it plays more like a 4. I had to extend my shaft length dialed into the PM9 the keep the puck from sliding out under the aggressive rocker that starts above the heel.

You could see the VH production process with the pieces covering the upper quarter panel being glued on in some of the videos of their factory. The only part of that assemblage that was stitched into the shell was at the edge, which you could more easily see from the inside. Having said that, even if parts are just glued on, there are vastly different kinds of glue, and while I'm not a composites expert by any means, what I've gathered about these thermoformable boots is there are several different glues for different applications with different activation temperatures. From what I recall, the colored parts of the exterior were applied after the shells were cured with the liners inside them. That makes me think it's not a good mix to try and remove those glued pieces after the fact, as the effect on the shell might well be undesired. Or the undo process could simply be delicate and therefore cost prohibitive compared to just getting a new skate. @GregHenn19, instead of the replacement approach, have you considered the additive approach? Just trace the form of the pieces you want adhered to the boot, cut them out and glue them on top. There might be a hint of added thickness depending on the material you chose, but at least you avoid the headache of the unglue/undo process, and you avoid any risk of damaging the skate from taking the surgical route. Just do the same way as they trace-cut-and-stick shot blockers are applied. Optionally stitch into the shell at the edge if you wish. As for skate weight watchers, I doubt this would do much to nudge the Trues into the "even heavier" category. Those looking for super light skates are already shopping elsewhere.

I get that. I’m just saying he is known for his skating prowess indirectly. It’s just like with fireworks: it’s quite cool and remarkable that they fly in their own right; everyone forgets about all that when they go “bang!” As a counter viewpoint though, wouldn’t it be impressive if the less than stellar skaters used niche tech at the highest level? The other ones are doing fine with what they’ve got. It’s the ones who need a little help that should guide the homeviewer towards potential improvements. Marleau and McDavid are classic examples of it’s not the skates but the skaters that make them go—they’ll be frickin’ fast in anything. What they’re wearing, then, might be correllated with speed but certainly wouldn’t be pinpointed as causing the same speed.

But his particular brand of physical presence is open ice hitting rather than simply being big and mean like Derian Hatcher or Chris Pronger, simply because Kronwall's not big and he actually is a good skater. It's just usually what happens when he skates into your space that catches viewers' attention. Still it's only by incredible skating that those open ice hits happen.