colins

I'm going to monitor the situation much closer - and replace eyelets 3/4/5 at the first sign of damage to prevent his laces from ripping through the boot again. colins

Thanks JS I believe your 2nd last sentence there should read 'every one of these models with the 280 holder'. Thanks for the definitive, thread closing feedback! This is all the info anyone moving from the original Jetspeeds to the current lineup needs to know w.r.t sizing. My oldest son had his first skate last night in his new 9D Jetspeed Control skates (custom Source for Sports SKU - FT380 boot with upgraded Composite outsole w/vent from the FT390 and upgraded tongue from the FT1, and +2mm Speedblade Stainless). I've had the opportunity to compare these skates side by side with a pair of X900 gen II that I bought for him at first when he couldn't seem to find a good fit in the new FT1 line (the sizing change threw us for a loop!). He tried 4 or 5 hours on the ice with the X900s but just couldn't get the feel he wanted coming from the old Jetspeeds. The Control skate at $499 MSRP (Canada) is a better built skate vs. the $799 X900. I wasn't impressed with the X900 holders (one is mounted crooked vs. the other, visibly noticeable), and the rear of one of the boots has a small puncture hole already after just a few hours use, not even real game action. He got a full (intense) season last year from his Jetspeeds without any structural damage to the boot - it was the eyelets that gave out. The Control even weighs in a bit less @ 861g with Stepsteel installed vs. 867g for the X900 with stock LS3. Now to just figure out how to prevent the CCM embossed eyelets from corroding on him - we're going to adjust our maintenance routine to see if we can avoid the corrosion and eventual failure of the eyelets that we saw on both previous pairs of Jetspeeds he's owned. Thanks again! colins

Anyone have a 2017/18 William Karlsson prostock? They jjust said on the Sportsnet broadcast for game 1 of the Stanley Cup final that this season Karlsson cut two inches off his stick, and lowered the lie of the blade. This doesn't make much sense to me - if you take two inches off your stick, you would tend to need to raise your lie to keep the blade on the ice when it's closer to your feet/body. I noticed this myself going from a P88/P40 to the P92. I hated the P92 for years until I finally cut 2-3 inches off and used it at a much shorter length than I liked my P88 at. Did they just get it mixed up, or did Karlsson really shorten his stick and *decrease* his lie to land on his current stick choice? colins

JR - so that I understand what you're saying - we should trust the holder mm (280) and not the size label mm (27.7cm on tthe 9D FT390 sizing label, 27.3cm on the 8.5D Jetspeed sizing label)? I think what you're re-enforcing and what I've also discovered in the process, is that the old 8.5D Jetspeed boots now carry the 9D sizing label on the new FT390 (along with a few design tweaks), but are otherwise the same dimensions. Maybe @BelangerJS could chime in with his perspective. This really threw me for a loop - at first away from the FT line, and now back again that we understand it's not 'like for like' coming from the Jetspeeds unless you move up half a size to find your same fit. colins

Wow - check out that sweet girdle. colins

I'm still trying to fully understand what changed in the sizing of the CCM skate lineup, particularly with the Jetspeed / FT1 line, between 2015 and now. Here's what I know: - The 2015 Jetspeed size 8.5D had a 280 holder and was listed as 27.3 cm on the sizing tag. - The 2017 FT390 size 8.5D has a smaller 272 holder. I don't know what size in cm is listed on the tag - can someone confirm? I'm guessing 27.3. - The 2017 FT390 size 9D has a 280 holder and is listed as 27.7 cm on the sizing tag. The sizing chart for runners confirms the above, but says the sizes changed after 2014-2015. It lists 2016 CCM skates in the downsized holders (8.5 as a 272 instead of 280). I guess if the FT1 technically first shipped in 2016 this would be correct - did it? I can see customers having a hard time ordering the right sized runners if they bought Jetspeeds in 2016 and went by the sizing chart for CCM runners listed on hockeymonkey's site without actually checking their holder size printed on the holder. So - what I don't understand is - why does a 8.5D FT380 use a 272 holder and a 8.5D Jetspeed use a 280 holder, while both skates seem to have the holder mounted as close to the heel/toe as possible, yet the sizing labels indicates one should be 4 mm shorter than the other? In trying them on, I would say the 8.5D Jetspeed and 9D FT380 are much closer in real fit than the half size and 4mm indicated on the sizing label. The holder sizes seem to also re-enforce this. So I'm speculating that the way they measure/label has changed, but there's no difference in boot size between the 8.5D Jetspeed and 9D FT380, despite the .4 mm discrepancy on the size tag. Can anyone explain in simple terms this holder sizing / boot sizing change that occurred between the Jetspeed and FT1 line? Did retailers receive any additional info on this - or was the advice just to 'make sure customers try them on, we've adjusted our sizing'? colins

I find that listening to the pitch of the sound made by the wheel contacting the steel is a great way to tell. If it's consistent and not chattering or changing pitch as it travels left to right and right to left, it's at a good height. Of course very damaged blades are going to cause pitch variations, but for touch ups or final passes the machine should make a nice consistent sound the length of the blade. Also, for tall steel like LS3 or Step, I still prefer to use the goalie risers. I just find they make it easier to use the height adjustment to hit the toe where I want and not have too much pressure to vary the pitch of the sound... I may be crazy but that's my preference after a year plus sharpening the 4 pairs in my house every couple of skates. colins

Update - went back on tried on a 9D FT380. As far as we can tell, this boot is pretty much identical in fit to the 8.5D Jetspeed my son is wearing now. Both have 280 holders. The 8.5D FT380 has a 271 holder, so it's definitely a shorter boot vs. the JetSpeed at the same size. Based on this, I've ordered a pair of CCM Jetspeed Control skates in a 9D. It's a custom SMU for Source for Sports, based off the FT380 but with upgrades from the FT390 (outsole and liner) and FT1 (tongue). For $499 cdn (same price as the retail base model FT380), it's the best deal I can see for achieving a fit and quality level today similar to the Jetspeed he skated in previously. Thanks for the advice - hope the above info is helpful to anyone else skating in a Jetspeed and looking to get a new similar fit this season. colins

Same issue with his feet and mine - high insteps. Thanks everyone for the feedback - back to the shop we go to try on some more skates/sizes. colins

I get that, but it was an instant 'no this one can't work' when he tried the same size/width of FT1 vs. Jetspeed. I'd be interested in hearing from others who are in Jetspeeds and have tried on the FT1 to compare. I'm definitely going to have a look at some other models in the FT1 lineup and maybe try on the FT1 again just to make sure it wasn't a fluke.

I've been looking - not the case in Canada at least for an 8.5D based on my searching.

His feet are still perfect in the 8.5D Jetspeed he's wearing, it's just that they are falling apart (literally). Ideally I'd like to get a replacement that is an identical boot volume wise / heel / toe, the FT1 didn't seem to be that when he tried on the same 8.5D. We didn't try the other skates in the FT lineup. Perhaps that's what we need to try next. colins

Wait - is this confirmed? Is the Tacks 9080 the same boot dimensions as the previous Jetspeed? My son needs new skates, the old Jetspeeds fit him perfect but the new FT1's don't seem to... not sure if it's because the ones he tried on weren't baked/broken in or if the FT1 boot is slightly different than the Jetspeed was. If the new Tacks 9080 is the same as the previous Jetspeed boot, that changes everything and gives me a new option I hadn't considered. Does anyone have definitive info on this? colins

Couple of commercial options around Richmond listed here - maybe contact them see if you can drop in and use your own grinding ring and share Sparx info: https://www.sparxhockey.com/pages/skate-sharpening-near-me

I put the toe towards the right on mine. Sparx documentation showed toe left, so I imagine most new users follow that advice. colins

They did. It's called the PS100. It'll run you $1100 more than the home version: https://www.sparxhockey.com/pages/sparx-ps100-commercial-skate-sharpener colins

I believe the issue was with the amount of steel dust it produced in a short period of time. Sparx was sending out replacement filters for people who ordered the cross grind ring before they discontinued them. colins

I'd like to hear Russ's view on 3rd party grinding rings. Would Sparx ever consider licensing the info/tools necessary to allow a 3rd party to produce rings? My guess is no, for obvious reasons like the rings being a key part of the profit/income for Sparx as a going business, and quality control (your machine gets a bad rap because of poor quality 3rd party grinding rings). That said, w.r.t technology nearly everything these days that hits critical mass has some factory in China pumping out 3rd party accessories. Apple certainly hasn't been able to stop this. At some level of volume, it would be odd to think there wouldn't be an attempt to reverse engineer the rings and offer 3rd party options. I would imagine Sparx has thought about this and has planned for it. colins

If you're using the same blades that have already been freshly sharpened (but ever so slightly off center), I would say 2 or 3 passes after adjusting the alignment would be sufficient to do another edge check to see if you prefer the new results. As others have said, this is a great scenario for the marker test - just put a new strip of marker down the blade between adjustments and make sure it's all removed before you use the edge checker to measure your results. Since dialing mine in this way, using the Sparx edge checker, I haven't had to readjust it. I've probably sharpened 80+ pairs since then. colins

Foam was with it. It was the Pick n Pluck stuff, so I just pulled a few rows of cubes off to fit the Sparx in. colins

I happened upon a Pelican 1650 deal I couldn’t pass up. Here’s my Sparx in it for a test fitting. colins

Great find. The same Husky box is also available from Home Depot in Canada for $117 (not on sale at the moment). colins

As far as I can tell, the Sparx option is a Pelican 1650 with a custom cut foam insert. Pelican offers 'Pick N Pluck' foam with their cases - you can remove small pre-cut squares to make your own insert shapes/dimensions. I can find the Pelican 1650 for as low as $285 CDN or $243 USD on Amazon. Used cases are also pretty common on ebay, and replacement foams are available too. Just FYI - please confirm sizing before ordering a case. If you compare the Exterior Dimensions of the Sparx Pelican cases to those on Pelican's site, it looks like the 1650 with the exterior dimensions rounded up a half inch or so, that's what I'm basing the above info on. I think Sparx is offering a great value for their pre-configured case, but if you wanted to roll your own maybe this info is helpful to you. colins

I tried moving myself and my two boys from 1/2 to 5/8th as well. Depending on the ice conditions, it was either fine or not enough bite if the ice was particularly hard. I tried 9/16's and it seems ideal for us for any ice condition. We've been skating on 9/16th all season (since September). colins

I think it's getting hard now to find a big tournament where you won't see a Sparx in the hallway. I saw the same thing last year at Bantam and Midget tournaments like the Monctonian (Moncton, New Brunswick) and Icejam (Halifax, Nova Scotia). The portability, ease of use and lack of mess make it a no-brainer for travel teams that have budget for such things.