Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Reviews wanted! ×

colins

Members+
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    557

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by colins

  1. Posted · Report reply

    2 hours ago, Vet88 said:

    This is my only real disappointment with the CCM line atm. I'd happily pay a few extra bucks per skate for a better eyelet. The ones they use now, and have previously used in the past, are just crap. Sweat reacts with them and they break down exceptionally fast versus other brands such as Bauer, Mission, Alkali. I've tried a lot of things on my Jetspeeds and other peoples CCM skates: wax, waterproof sealant, wash and dry after every skate (real pita), anti corrosive marine paint etc. Nothing worked. 

     

    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

  2. Posted · Edited by colins · Report reply

    7 hours ago, BelangerJS said:

    Hi Colins, thanks for tagging me on this although you have it pretty much figured out.

    In 2016, with the launch of the original Super Tacks line, we adjusted our sizing tags and moved everything in the new Super Tacks line a half-size up from the JetSpeed line. This was going to be the new sizing for all new products for CCM moving forward (and still relevant for today's launches). Which means that:

    • 8D JetSpeed (2015) with 272 holder = 8.5D Super Tacks with 272 holder
    • 8.5D JetSpeed (2015) with 280 holder = 9D Super Tacks with 280 holder 

    Even though we continued to sell the JetSpeed line in 2016, we did not make the change midway through its lifecycle and didn't make the sizing-label changes on that line. We made the change in 2017 with the launch of the "FT-line"

    So for full clarity, here is how the sizing tags work right up to until this year's launch:

    • 8D JetSpeed (2015) line =
      • 8.5D Super Tacks line
      • 8.5D JetSpeed FT1 line
      • 8.5D Super Tacks AS1 line
      • every one of these models with 272 holder
    • 8.5D JetSpeed (2015) line =
      • 9D Super Tacks line
      • 9D JetSpeed FT1 line
      • 9D Super Tacks AS1 line
      • every one of these models with 272 holder
         

    I hope this helps, let me know if i can be of any more assistance.

     

    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

    • Like 1

  3. Posted · Report reply

     

    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

  4. Posted · Edited by colins · Report reply

    5 hours ago, JR Boucicaut said:

    Simple answer - and it's an answer I've used for a very long time - mm don't lie.

    It was simply a tag switch.  Sizing wasn't adjusted.  CCM wanted to simplify the process for Bauer converts.

    I've always been on the "small" side of a 296mm holder.  The only exception on this was Supreme skates, in which they were sized with the 2.1 holder in mind.  The 10.5 was mounted with a 288mm holder which looked small on the skate, but with the 2.1 steel, it was a 296.  Once you figure it out, it's the best way to determine your size in every brand.

     

    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

  5. Posted · Report reply

    On 5/24/2018 at 4:20 AM, tvuollo said:

    Even being a finnish brand, they don't have their products in any usual retail stores that sell hockey equipment. I have no idea what their business model these days is. Our beer league team did order team jerseys and socks from them though.

    Back in the 90s everyone here had either Tackla, Koho or Jofa equipment. Now only those that have old or second hand equipment wear them.

    https://www.tackla.com/company.html

     

    Wow - check out that sweet girdle.

    tackla-breezer-prozone-ice-hockey-pants-black.jpg

     

    colins

     

  6. Posted · Edited by colins
    improved clarity     · Report reply

     

    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

     

     

     

     

     

     

  7. Posted · Report reply

    2 hours ago, Santos L Halper said:

    *nods*

    Yep.  Lowering the wheel one click reduces the upward pressure by the grinding wheel on the blade, which will absolutely help reduce burrs.  

    To me, that whole "grinding wheel height adjustment" thing is still the biggest piece of voodoo with the Sparx - how high is too high? And...in the same breath, how low is high enough?  

     

    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

  8. Posted · Edited by colins · Report reply

    On 5/4/2018 at 12:02 AM, colins said:

     

    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

     

    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

    • Like 3

  9. Posted · Report reply

    6 hours ago, boo10 said:

    I wore the OG Jetspeed in a 7D and it fit quite well.  I have a high instep, so most skates are a problem for me.  I tried on several models from the new Jetspeed line in 7.5D and they were all way too shallow, so the answer is yes the new line has changed in volume.  Interestingly enough, I found the current Tacks line to fit very similar to the OG Jetspeed line in terms of width and depth.  Just my 2 cents.

     

    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

  10. Posted · Report reply

    19 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

    No unbaked skate is going to give you the same feel of fit as one that's been baked and skated in by the player.

     

    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.

  12. Posted · Report reply

    19 minutes ago, flip12 said:

    Pretty sure Tacks are still a different fit from JetSpeed. It’s not that “this is the skate McD wears” but “this skate is the same (material) spec as McD’s,” which is a softer JetSpeed, equivalent to JetSpeed FT380’s but with a composite outsole instead of plastic.

    Did the other boots in the current JetSpeed line also fit your son differently? The construction differences between the FT1s’ and the previous top of the JetSpeed line may be to blame. Also, could his feet have changed sizes or volume ratios?

     

    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

  13. Posted · Report reply

    On 5/1/2018 at 4:00 PM, CaptainFranchise said:

    So the Tacks 9080 is identical to the old JetSpeed? From the gear sightings thread, I think it’s interesting CCM can’t get McDavid to use their current product (or at least something that looks like their current product).

     

    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

  14. Posted · Report reply

    13 hours ago, Sticktape said:

    I am heading to Richmond BC from Sask on Easter Weekend for a camp and I would prefer not to pack my Sparx for the flight. Hoping to find somebody nearby with a Sparx Machine that I could use. I would bring discs etc just need a machine. I have four sets of steel so may make it thru the weekend but can’t be certain. Any help would be appreciated. 

     

    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

    • Like 2

  15. Posted · Report reply

    15 minutes ago, Playmakersedge said:

    Some factories offer drop shipping after doing  X amount of business.  It keeps the cost down for everyone  . This could be the case . I bet it comes faster. 

    Can the skate be put in the machine?   When I have seen video of the machine the toe was facing left from the vantage point of the window 

     

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

     

    colins

    • Thanks 1

  16. Posted · Report reply

    7 hours ago, Santos L Halper said:

    Truth.  

    Which is (IMHO, anyway...) indicative of the one major design flaw of the Sparx consumer machine: There is no provision whatsoever to attach a vacuum/dust collector to the unit.

    Despite the weird promo video of the Sparx unit whirring away on the kitchen counter while the kids do their homework in the background, I'm willing to wager that the VAST majority of consumers have these machines set up in their basements or garages.  You know, places where they are also likely to have access to a shopvac with a 2.5" nozzle - a tool which just so happens to be tailor-made to suck fine-grained steel detritus out of a relatively small enclosed space.

    Seriously.  A 2.5" port in the back of the unit would (a) allow the use of a cross-grinding ring, and (b) obviate the need to replace a $16.00 filter.  Why hasn't this been done, yet?

    What's that?  Oh, Sparx doesn't want to lose the revenue from filter sales?  Fine.  Then make the vacuum port an option and charge an extra $50 for a unit that has one.

    I sharpen skates for several players that change their hollows based on the hardness of the ice they're playing on next - if I had a cross-grind ring and my shop vac hooked up to my sharpener, I could get done in 3-4 passes, what it takes a 'regular' grinding ring 10+ passes to do...

     

     

     

    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

  18. Posted · Report reply

    14 hours ago, Vet88 said:

    You can't use 3rd party grinding rings (yet), Sparx have an ID tag in the ring, if there is no ID tag sensed then the machine will not sharpen. It's how the machine knows how many passes a wheel has done. 

     

    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

  19. Posted · Report reply

    8 hours ago, marka said:

    Howdy,

     

    Keeping in mind that I've only used my machine now five times on 3 different pairs of skates...

    Using my crap ebay edge checker, I've seen some variance on edge heights.  A couple clicks one way or the other on the ring alignment seems to change it a little.  Using the alignment tool, its hard to see a difference with just one or two clicks, so I'm thinking that dialing it in is going to be more about the edge checker than the alignment tool.  But in that process, I don't know if I need to run just a single cycle, 4 cycles, or whatever else to get the full radius reground & "moved" across the blade.  I'd rather not waste ring or steel life I don't need to waste, of course.

    I also assume that something could change in the future and I'd need to re-dial it in.  Presumably the clamp is good about centering the blade on the wheel, but I could also see that not being 100% so even if the clamp is repeatable, it might have a different setting for a different thickness blade.

    Mark

    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

    • Like 1

  21. Posted · Report reply

    On 2017-12-17 at 10:38 PM, colins said:

     

    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 happened upon a Pelican 1650 deal I couldn’t pass up. 

    Here’s my Sparx in it for a test fitting. 

     

    35r3s0p.jpg

     

    colins

    • Like 3

  23. Posted · Edited by colins
    Interior vs. Exterior dimensions.     · Report reply

    22 hours ago, Bbddll said:

    I received my Sparx machine a week ago. My 14 year old uses 5/8 and I skate on 3/4. I really like the ease of changing the grinding wheels. I am looking for a carry/storage case for it. I really don't want to spend $399 for Sparx's case. I plan on getting a case that is the same size as the box my machine came in. I am planning on using the interior packing material that came in the shipping box. Anyone have any thoughts on this or already found a case? FYI...this is my first post, just joined this group. 

     

    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

     

  24. Posted · Report reply

    21 minutes ago, benson said:

    I've had it since May 2016. When I got it, I ordered 3 extra grinding rings, 2 different sizes (1/2" and 5/8" FIRE) and an extra in the main one I use (5/8"). The 1/2" I got for my son, the 5/8" for myself, and the FIRE to give it a try. Initially I was sharpening at my usual intervals, roughly every week or 5-6 hours of ice time. I've alternated between just doing a couple passes every couple of hours of ice, to waiting a week and doing a normal sharpening (4 passes). As to the number of rings I've used, I'm on the second round of rings in each size (1/2" and 5/8"). I don't use the FIRE often, I have a second set of blades that I sharpen with that, but just don't use them often. And I may switch my son to 5/8", we tried his last sharpening in that and he liked it.

    No issues at all. Easy to use, and we've liked the sharpenings we've gotten with it. Based on the manual, I've probably got to change the air filter soon, but haven't had the warning light turn on yet. I will probably order one with my next ring order just to make sure I have it.

     

    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

  25. Posted · Edited by colins
    fixed typo "non-brainer"     · Report reply

     

    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.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...