flip12

I've only had very basic physics as well, and that's certainly not adequate to explain what's going on. I'm pretty sure I have a faulty model in my head, but I'd love for it to be corrected. To complicate matters further, the traditional explanation of pressure creating the liquid layer that makes skating possible has been challenged by resent surface science research (summary article from NYTimes: Explaining Ice: The Answers Are Slippery), though researchers have been unable to reach a consensus on what phenomenon actually is responsible. Still, whatever the nature of ice actually is, it probably doesn't change much in the physical modeling of how to interact with that slippery layer on skates. My thought, with regards to the FBV producing less drag when the flat is wider is that it's actually an effect from the other factor--the depth of the bite. (I think we're on the same page-ish there.) Even if making the blade's flat wider were to increase drag (as my intuition tells me, though it is only an intuition), it might not do so nearly as much as the correlated adjustment of bite angle and bite depth would. I guess the way to check this would be to test the different settings by holding the first or the second number constant. If the depth is kept the same and the bite angle is changed or the bite angle is kept the same and the depth and width of the flat are changed, what is the effect on blade drag? With FBV's particular shape, I can't see how to separate the effect of a wider flat from the other changes that automatically come with it.

I think it might be more helpful to shift the discussion from glide to drag. They're essentially inverses of each other, but the difference is, drag is something you can model physically, while glide is just what it feels like to have less drag. Unless I'm picturing the scenario wrongly, isn't there less drag on narrower steel than wider steel (if everything else about the sharpening is held constant). I'm thinking anecdotally: Micron V2 steel attempted to replicate the decreased drag on speed skaters' steel, which is narrower than hockey steel. The greater width for hockey and figure skater steel being desirable for better spontaneous turning.

That's the whole area I wish they would rework design and construction-wise. It sounds like the skates are still selling better and better, but I imagine the junction of the heel/achilles turns some people off.

I'm curious, what's different between a generous ankle measurement with more wrap than needed and 55-Flex? Isn't that exactly what 55-Flex does?

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.

Base has the same pattern as well, BC88; though I have yet to try one of their blades or sticks so I don't know how their longevity tends to be.