walkerdb7

yes, that is how is noticed, I made a video to track progress.

Yeah, I don't buy much into the weight thing? I am 6'2" and weigh 215. Used to use an 85 flex and tried a 75 recently. Other than a classic slap shot, the 75 is a win. Can release my shot faster and have more zip on quick wrist and snap shots, which is way more practical than a 100 or whatever a weight chart would say I should use. Looking into the same logic for my son? See if something with equipment can help give him confidence or performance improvement I am going to buy a stick, haha, just curious if I can get away with the closeout model!

Hi all, extremely specific question here, hopefully someone knows... My son currently has the Bauer Nexus 20 flex stick. He is about 75 lbs and 55" tall. With a good shooting motion / technique, both in classic wrist or modern snap shop, the stick barely flexes. Looks me using a 110 flex instead of an 85. We were messing around in the shop yesterday to see if anyone had a softer flex kids stick and we found the True PX4. It's labeled a 15, but it's like 5 flex compared to everyone else's 10 or 20 flex. I would have bought the stick, but they only had LH and we need RH. I went online to order and I noticed a closeout on the 2 generation old PX. It's labeled a 15 flex as well. Does anyone know if the True sticks got softer over time of it the PX and the PX4 will be at the same? See further details below about marketing speak and why I am questioning this The newer model PX4 lists the UFlex as a new technology and it's not mentioned on the old PX

There are using the EOS P770. I don't believe the specifics of helmets per build are information we should be sharing, but it's a solid number. The process is set up so that 1 lot of helmets finishes every 24 hours. We are not building to full height and letting the machine sit unattended for multiple days. This ensures that the machine is not a bottle neck for post processing, assembly, shipping, etc.

@marka - what timing, haha https://www.instagram.com/p/CxG2HhmvzvU/

I am sorry, I don't have those exact figures. For the development phase, we helped Bauer build like 500ish helmets before they got their own machine in house. They don't share the specifics of how many they produced since taking over the production. You definitely won't have like helmet 11 if that is at all a concern. These pro and retail helmets are produced in Blainville.

Cale Makar has worn it for a couple seasons now. He wore during his Conn Smyth campaign. Eichel wore it from day 1 in Vegas. Other Bauer athletes like Suzuki, Caulfield, etc are wearing it too. All of team Canada had them at the WJC, which got cancelled. Some of the Instagram equipment accounts have caught on, here's pics of NHL guys in it: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cn4t2rApvzA/?img_index=1 https://www.instagram.com/p/CnxhqyKOwNn/ Here's the "lost" team canada pic:

Thank you, the additional clarification helps me understand what you are saying better. I am very familiar with the skate scan, assembly, and manufacturing processes. That is completely apples and oranges from what's happening with the 3D printing in the helmets. No one is creating the individual piece components of ankle padding, the footbed, or tongue on-demand from scratch based on your unique scan in the skate world. The equivalent process of making the individual liner components from scratch is what's happening with the helmets. With skates, they are customized with stock pieces of materials in fixed sizes that are sitting on the shelf waiting for an order. The unique combination of the stock materials is what makes them custom to order. Yes, not every inch of the Bauer liner is done with 3DP. That was done to match Bauer's design goals within the balancing act I keep referring to, of safety, fit, and weight/breathability. As far as customization goes, though, all the key areas, such as the frontal areas, crown, and occipital lobe, are 3D printed. That is where you will most notice the fit differences compared with a stock helmet. If someone has an abnormal lump on the very top of their head, then they could be an outlier from fully enjoying this helmet, but I believe you're getting into the 1-2% of people scenarios now. As I stated above, it's my understanding that the helmet should be tested by VT. I won't know anything more until it's publicly available, though. If VT does not test it, I will be disappointed. I am dying to see the results myself, assuming it performs like I would expect.

Fully understand that. That is not a part of the equation my organization. I want to see Bauer succeed because it's a great innovation and it helps my company, so I am trying help out with questions about the process or what to expect. The business model part or fit guarantee is between the retailers and Bauer.

Your wear like a dri-fit material swimming sort of cap. It flattens out all of your hair like it would fit in the under the helmet.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, the CCM retail display feels better to most people and I say "most people" because feel is subjective. I'm not trying to argue here and I totally get your point. I talked to a local Pure Hockey manager, who I coach with, and he told me the same thing. The CCM helmets feel softer to the touch and are more comfortable when you try them on in the store. CCM did a great job with that. But here's what's totally different with a scan to print product, the helmets you see in the store aren't going to feel 1:1 with the custom helmets customers receive. Digitally created custom-fit helmets are a new thing, we need to think a bit differently, and trust the process. The helmet liner does not really smush or compress into your head like a traditional foam liner. This isn't like custom skates where they tweak regular stock parts to fit your feet better. They scan your feet and then best fit you into an existing skate last or size. It's also not like traditional custom goalie masks where they add or remove some padding to make it fit right. With these custom helmets, they start from scratch and each liner is digitally created to match your unique head shape. So, instead of thinking, "The CCM display feels great, so it will feel better than the Bauer", my hope is that people understand "the Bauer helmet is digitally created for me. The final product will be a perfect fit, without pain points or hot sports, and the retail model is just a display to help me understand what the final product looks likes". Unless you order a custom Bauer helmet, you won't really know how it'll feel on your head. That's the tricky part about this project—for consumers, there's no way to try it on and see how great it is until you actually buy one. There's no test run. This website still survives because it's the most educated and hardest core hockey consumer. That's why I am here to share some thoughts and help out potential buyers or anyone curious. I can't say for sure if VT will test the Bauer helmet, but I hope they do. VT usually buys the helmets themselves for testing. We won't know the results until the test is done and they share the info, but I'd bet that the myBauer helmet gets a good rating and beats 1 star.

Yes, it's scalable, but that is still the most challenging part. Traditional foam materials are relatively inexpensive and die cutting sheet foam or molding foam is faster than 3D printing. 3D printing is more of a top price point technology right now and I wouldn't expect to see it in any lower price point / value products in the next few years For protection, the best think I can think of VT ratings? I know it's not perfect and people could find flaws in it, but I don't see any equipment OEMs publicly presenting safety data. VT is the only neutral source I am aware of? I would expect this helmet to be rated there and I check for it personally, I want to see that we did a good job. Yes, hockey helmets have the same concept. There are foams specifically designed for safety or absorption and others designed for comfort. That is why traditional helmets have multiple foams inside the liners. They are designed to balance weight, comfort, and safety. With 3D printing, you vary the diameter of the lattice strut, the shape of the cell, and/or the base feed stock material to reach the same goals. Our IP, which Bauer uses, is about the lattice shapes morphing into each other. That will most closely mimic the traditional concept of multi-density foams fused together. Yes, the shell is the same as the Re-Akt 150. The software decides if you are a S, M, or L shell and then it wraps the lattice around your unique head shape, creates a build file, and then the parts are built. The parts are printed contoured / round and uniquely to your head shape. The parts look like a piece of cantaloupe almost. Check out the images I posted above. Top right image is exactly what the printed part looks like. It's contoured.

As a general statement, heavier materials are more dense. More dense materials are going to absorb energy. Absorbing energy is a key design in helmet safety. Making a lighter helmet which is still safe is incredible hard. It's not any different than trying to maintain a certain level of durability as the sticks get lighter and lighter. I don't represent Bauer and none of the statements I am sharing are from Bauer But, I give talks about this helmet all the time at 3D printing trade shows, technical conferences, media events, etc. The information I am sharing is the EOS side of the story and some of my opinions / observations. I have worked with helmet companies in football, military, baseball and cycling too. My company supported a team which won $1,000,000 from the NFL to pursue a next generation helmet. I share that info not to be annoying, but to add context to my opinions that I am sharing. If you haven't tried a custom to you fit Bauer helmet, it's unfair to say the CCM helmet is more comfortable? They key point to the Bauer helmet is that it's based off a scan of your head. I have one and it honestly feels like nothing is on my head when I'm playing. Above is an insider peak at how the software works. The red spots in the large image show your potential pressure points in a stock helmet. One of the capabilities is that the customization software compensates for that. CCM created a lattice that is softer to the touch, shows better at retail, and/or feels better in a fitting setting, that I completely agree with. It's an optics thing, but I feel it's a clear distinction to make. From my personal opinion on this topic, you're most expensive helmet can't be the worst helmet in independent test studies? So when you focus too much on comfort / breathability and light weighting, other aspects of the helmet design will fall off. The reason there is not more lattice everywhere or that it's not softer is concerns about making something which wouldn't meet the on ice performance requirements. I am personally checking VT every week, but I want to see the myBauer results and it's hope and expectation that it performance in line with traditional material.

Yes, there is a leap of faith in trusting the process. I also am a hockey player and a hockey dad too. The cost of goods is not lost on me. I will say it was weird working on a product I knew would be more expensive, just knowing the guys I play men's league with would bust my stones about it. From what I have seen... I can say from getting to know the Bauer team, they do care. It's a topic on every single call. It's even a concern with NHL equipment budgets. But I think that solution from like the 3X or 3S or SFS exclusives being really well designed for the price? At that top price point, it's about pushing boundaries. That requires new materials, R&D, etc and the price reflects that.

Sorry if that offended you, but I was not "bashing" either product. If my wording left it open to that interpretation, that was not at all where I was going. My purpose was sharing my opinion as someone who is on the inside of this every day, and may or may not work on the brands or products referenced. I was including our own UA shoe into this mix too. For 3D printing to reach its full main stream potential, products need to offer a tangible end benefit to the consumer and we need to move past buying them because they are “cool” or novel. A custom fit helmet is a great example of 3D printing proving a unique value. In my opinion, If Runner's World was to compare the newest 4D shoe, which is supposed to be a performance shoe, to the Nike Alpha Fly 2 at similar price points, I would anticipate the Alphafly would win. It's not saying 4D is a bad product, it's providing insider feedback on why those products haven't completely taken over the market. 4D is probably the number 1 polymer application which has created awareness for the long term potential of the 3DP technology. I have a ton of respect for what was done there. Brings me joy when I tell new acquaintances what I do for work and they say "like those Adidas shoe, those are so cool".