flip12

They had to do modifications for Blake Wheeler because of the width of his forefoot. It's discussed here in one of the VH feature videos.

If you turn everything into a slip-n-slide, you could potentially increase the incidence of injury from strange deflections of said elbows off a shoulder directly into the boards or whatever.

Good to note, I haven't seen the new boots in person yet so in that way it was unfair to say. Since the replacement isn't as much of an issue now, I'll just add that I like how the Mako/MLX tendon guard sits in the notched area at the back of the boot, so that it twists and pulls lower, closer to the ankle joint, if it is taped. That really comes down to personal preference then. On a scale of tight to loose tendon guard tape, I prefer loose.

Not exactly your point, but Fedorov and Gonchar didn't really tape with anywhere near the same firmness, they're pretty much at opposite ends of extremely loose (Fedorov) and very secured (Gonchar). If you really want to tape and use a boot like VH, I'd suggest you go with the Mako instead, since its tendon guard is replaceable just as it was on the MLX.

Yes, it would be nice if this were elaborated somewhere. As it is, Va Tech's Hockey STAR scored the helmets on rotational and linear impact, so if our helmets are ever to get better at handling rotational impact it will be through such testing and books on the table methods. If you just search "rotat" in the original article, you'll see how they incorporated rotational forces into this experiment. They didn't do it for Football STAR, and they only did it for Hockey STAR (according to their own account of it) because of constructive criticism they received on their Football STAR studies. According to their own 10 Year Plan, it's going to be ongoing.

From the VA Tech lab's track record of football helmet ratings, it sounds as though it's likely to be ongoing. I haven't read their papers all the way through, but there should be a portion of the discussion at the end of the paper where they outline their plans.

I can't help but think that VH will improve their durability just like almost any other first-generation skate. Look at the one90's heel separation and brutal tongue, the Mako's shredding shell and prickly upper cuff, the Vapor 8 had facing-shredding and rock-hard tendon guard that were addressed with the Vapor 10... The improvements look like they address the durability issues that have come up, although I'd still like to see some things adjusted a little bit. mc88, I've had a similar feeling of discomfort in the top edge of my MLX, especially since I'm used to Graf's radiused padding at the top which allows for extreme ankle rotation, but my plan to fix it is to just spot heat that area and remold it with my ankle rotated out the way it normally is for forward strides. It took me a while to think of that versus just rolling the top out some arbitrary amount with my fingers. What I really think needs to happen is they just need to make the boots even shorter a bit, with an upper pillow similar to what's on their short track boots, and also make the top eyelets more aggressive, like Mission's old Past-Vert eyelets (thanks JR for reminding me about those!), like in Cruikshank's prototype that led to the MLX.

Got it, sorry for the repetitions :)

Still for the baking process or for skating in after they've been molded? Sorry I keep asking the same thing, it just hasn't been crystal clear from what I've read on your trouble shooting process. Sorry it's still troubling you too. The reason I thought maybe trying to give a little more volume back (which I thought forming a little bit looser in the uncomfortable section might help do) was I experienced similar excruciating arch pain in Graf 705's that were extra-stiff from having not been skated in for several months. When I skated in them everyday, I could lace them to firmly wrap my foot throughout the arch and they were perfect: no hint of pain and super responsive. Yet, skating in them dry, they wouldn't form to my feet on the sides so I had to lace them less tight to compensate. With these thermoformable shells as with the Mako, it's still a bit of a mystery process to me. I've been going through different approaches to my MLX and still haven't quite nailed it. I've fortunately not had any arch pain in those, however.

How tight did you lace this area when baking them?

Just an outside possibility, but how tight are you tying your skates Anjin-san? A lot of people have mentioned feeling awkwardness or pain in their Makos until they lacing their boots with barely any tension at all. If you're not cranking down on the laces, maybe try molding them again but leave a little more slack in the eyelets that are directly above where the pain in your foot is.

Did you ask if the new tendon guard is mobile or fixed? I'm curious about that.

It's growing on me. I'm intrigued especially by the new tendon guard. This is still a bit of an odd area for the current generation speed skate style hockey boots. I was just surprised when I saw these because I had been imagining changes for those areas, while thinking of something just a little bit different. Is there leather covering the side of the toe cap in the video? Is that why it looks so much more rough? It looks much better in the release pdf.

I've been wondering about the difference as well. Hockey Monkey lists the Mako II as 840 grams and the same size Mako M8 as 852 grams, so only a very slight difference in weight. Over in the Easton catalog thread, I asked if anyone could clarify what the material differences are between the models. From what I recall reading, the original Mako had a Texalium composite shell, not carbon composite. I don't know anything about how those two compare in performance or anything, just that they're different composite fabrics used in similar ways for composite part construction. What's potentially significant about the difference in Texalium on the original Mako and composite on the II, M8, etc. is the catalog lists a C-number, which could be the carbon content of the fabric? From my understanding, carbon can be substituted for fiberglas or other heavier materials, with similar end performance, just with higher stiffness in full-carbon fabrics and less in those containing some glas, etc. In the case of the 3-tiered Mako line, the C-numbers drop from C-100 to C-80 and C-50 from the top of the line (C-100) down to the bottom (C-50). I'm guessing at most of this, so anyone with better knowledge, please correct my misunderstandings. If I'm reading/guessing right, there's a 20% glas (or similar) content in the M8 compared to the Mako II and that doesn't make for that much of a weight increase.

It looks like it's maybe the same toe cap as in this video (warning, annoying audio). It looks gnarly, so much so that I assumed it was a special boot for extra forefoot protection or something.

Comparing the Mako Skates from II to M8 and M7 the "Carbon XXX" number decreases, from Carbon 100 to C- 80 and C- 50. Is this the carbon fiber to fiberglas (or some similar material) ratio?

Sounds great. I'd try it.

Great taste in boots there: Mega Air 90's, Graf G7's, Vapor 10's.

Could you share a range of starting points they recommend? Is there a way to guess a starting point depending on what one's used to coming from a traditional ROH? I tend to like my radius very shallow, probably more like what's common in Sweden (at the LHS closest to my place, which is just one of two in the whole city, they just do a standard 15mm, and they simply don't offer anything else). Would it be common to try a shallower hollow than usual because the channel has the effect of emphasizing the grip of what edge there is or maybe vice versa? I'd like to get a little insight on the theory before I start grinding my steel down next fall. There's a place that does it in Malmo, but their replies were vague by email and it's a bit pricey to physically go back and forth just to get some initial information.

Contacted by journalists, you mean? That's a good point. My guess would be it's because a headline about the safest helmet (according to a study, not to forget that that qualification would likely be left out) isn't as click-baity as one about how many concussions you're prone to get wearing helmets from the most prominent manufacturers.

Just from reading the intro to the article in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7), it's clear that the authors of the study are much more aware of and true to the nuances of concussion risk assessment. Also, they're aware of and testing for rotational components of impact in their study: "Given the fact that all head impacts have both linear and rotational acceleration components, future helmet evaluation should quantify injury risk using both linear and rotational head kinematics," (page 2).

That's why it's tricky to try two variable changes at once. You don't know what effect they have, if any. What about a 3/4" with a medium channel?

Do you still have the original tongue from your VH? It would be interesting to see how much more mass there is to the thicker ones. As much as the weight sits in people's minds, it would be nice if there were weights for all the sizes in a range, especially since a size 8 in one brand doesn't fit the same as a size 8 in another. I forgot to mention, but I noticed a similar sluggish feeling you mention having with the CXN when comparing my MLX holder to the LS2 (The MLX holder I have is a little longer though, so maybe that's the feeling I don't like?). Along with the LS2 the other holders I really feel comfortable in are Cobras and Tuuk Custom+. I'm wondering if having the hardware securing the steel down low by the toe and the heel can cause a holder to feel sluggish to some people.

Your 930-gram VH skate isn't standard is it? Standard tongue and toe-box, width, etc?

I wasn't trying to pick on you, but didn't want to let a potential misunderstanding continue to brew...it's quick for someone to misread, "getting hit by Borland is like getting shot by a bullet!" In a way that statement could be true, but it may not be the way people think at first. It was mostly the medical thing that I think is important for us all to remember. We're getting better at treating ourselves. Improved research and design is part of that and there are bound to be these storms along the way. I just happen to have that experience of seeing the two sides of publishing new knowledge talking at cross purposes, so this morass is familiar.