flip12

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm pretty sure Ryan Murray uses Niedermayer clones. He's still a lefty, but that means if you were to order custom sticks at True, you could get one of his patterns there mirrored for you without a mold fee. Unless I've fallen behind, everything I've heard about True custom sticks has included the bit that they don't charge for a mold fee at a much lower order number than other companies. I'd also be up for ordering some blades in that pattern from BASE if there was interest in getting a Niedermayer Pro done up in their pattern request program they have. Then it'd be available to righties and lefties alike.

That could be due to the P28’s heel curve and openness.

Yeah, one of Malkin’s patterns with Easton. He is indeed a lefty. Kovalchuk’s a righty and their patterns revolve around the same concept, so maybe you were picturing him?

@Hockeydad97, when you line them up, how do the lies look compared to each other? Can you take a shot of the three blades lined up so we can see how different the actual lie is?

Taste is notoriously subjective, but I think it's clear the skates you mentioned are still in the blinged category, even if Bauer's trying to suppress it in the new Supremes. I just can't look at that skate and not feel like vomiting after what they've done to the one90 legacy line. It's just such a disgrace. How is the composite finish an aesthetic issue rather than a cosmetic issue?

But that’s not really aesthetics, just cosmetics. The way it relates to the sense of touch appears to be primary in this case. Cosmetically, their skates could be better, but they’ve always played that angle of their skates down; thankfully, I’d add: it’s refreshing to have a decent skate on the market without all of the garish flourishes of the others.

Please do! Are the curves the same otherwise?

You mean Kovalev Pro? I didn't know they offered that in multiple lies.

Outside in might come from MLX. Cruikshank pushed that lacing pattern quite a bit. Graf waxed laces have just enough give to allow for that movement, I find. More wax than that is too much. Off the shelf skates can fit nicely with "just snug" lacing, if they're a decent fit match for one's foot shape. I've skated comfortably in 703's with just snug lacing on the first eyelet over the toes and the third from the top. The rest I just pulled close enough to take out the slack. 703's fit me really well, though.

I'd say it's closer to a standard Malkin. Both the Smyth and Malkin are modified E4s, so it's no wonder they might look similar. I happened to have both in my basement, along with E28 and E4, so I took some comparison shots... E4, W06 Smyth, E28, Malkin I'd go again for the BC71 suggestion...the only problem is, though it is a little more closed, it's also a flatter rocker, so the shooting mechanics are going to feel different than with the E28, both for sweeping wrist shots and snapshots. E4, W06 Smyth, E28, Malkin There it might be somewhat apparent how different the E28 lie and rocker is, but it's much more apparent if you overlay the E4 on the others, since it's the basis for two of the other three... The heel of the Malkin plays a little higher, like the E28, but you can see there's a significant lie and rocker difference that's going to come into play when releasing the puck. That may or may not work for the OP. It may be just as troublesome or even more so than learning to overcome the tendency to shoot high with the P28.

Thanks for the view! That definitely looks like a Malkin clone to me. I wondered if he had switched to that last year in the playoffs, because the blade face looked very Malkin, and I could see from GettyImages that it was a pronounced toe curve compared to his more Kovalev-banana-face-P92ish-curves from before. Depending on the blade face of this one, I'd say it's almost exactly a BC71--Malkin's go to pattern. If it's as similar to my Easton Malkins as it looks like it is, it's just a slightly longer and taller PM9 with less rocker. The biggest differences between that and a P28 is the more consistently flat rocker and a deeper pocket, with less heel curve contributing to the puck's positioning on the blade. It would at least play closer in lie to the P28 than the P46 would, along the heel at least. PS, that Jagr curve looks awesome--maybe a little less toe and a little more heel than the Kuznetsov. Can you share more pictures of that one? I'm curious about the lie as well.

That looks like a P28M with some different blade face shavings: squarer toe, slightly less toe rocker...but the same curve with the same openness at the toe.