AfftonDad

I could be wrong but I think that MOST shops (maybe not NoIcing) would still look at you funny for asking to bake before you buy on anything other than Mako.

I may have got mine a 1/2 size too big. If I don't tie them pretty snug, I feel too much slop. Especially when wearing thin socks. I got mine before shops were accustomed to baking them prior to the sale. I don't think I have extra room in the toe box though to give up. The composite and tongues on mine are definitely showing wear. I'll probably need some Mako IIs in the next six months. Hopefully Total Hockey will allow me to bake a pair a half size down from my current size before I buy.

Perhaps you meant "Blademaster" instead of "Blackstone" above? @JR - Have you used it enough to be able to comment on how well the claim of anti-scoring holds true? If it's still scores, I don't need one right now, if it doesn't score, I want one ASAP.

I wasn't happy with the results I got by measuring pictures of holders off of HockeyMonkey.com (There were unexplainable discrepancies probably due to distortions of images in post and/or my ability to "eyeball" the blade balance point in the picture). I had several pairs of skates passing through my garage this weekend so I killed some time by measuring the angles on each of the skates holders. The methodology was to stand the skate upright at it's natural balance point on the blade and take measurements with a digital caliper at the front of the front tower and the rear of the rear tower. In order to reduce measurement error, I did this five times, then rotated the skate and repeated the measurements. Then I repeated the entire process for the other skate and took the average values. I then took the InvTan( (RearHeight - FrontHeight) / HolderLength) ). If you choose to look at this table, please read the notes to understand the conditions of the skates measured. For example, the value for the Mako is AFTER my Mako's had approximately 0.5/32 pitch removed from them on the Blackstone shaper system (I think probably around 0.2 degrees). I realize that this doesn't take into consideration any additional pitch added by the boot itself or the insole. I wish I could have done it with new skates out of the box, but unfortunately I don't have any good enough friends at hockey stores that would let me borrow several thousand dollars in skates for a weekend. PLEASE NOTE: DEGREES ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS +1,+2,+3 ON CONTOURING SYSTEMS. http://i.imgur.com/JLKkrgC.png (EDIT: Changed to imgur for better image presentation)

If anyone is interested, To satisfy my own curiosity, I "measured" the front to rear tower angle on some of the common holders (Reebok Speedblade, Easton CXN, Reebok EPro, Easton Razor Bladz II, Tuuk Lightspeed Edge) from their pictures on HockeyMonkey. The accuracy of the measurements is subject to my ability to "guestimate" the balance point on the blade and is subject to the amount of perspective of the photo (I didn't include the Graf Ultra 5000 because of obvious perspective in the picture). Because the measurements are at best rough, I didn't want to post it to the thread but if you are interested, PM me and I'll send you the link.

There are a lot of "strong personalities" on here that can sometimes jump you if you suggest something that is different from what they believe. I was simply trying to provide a convincing (and hopefully non-confrontational) argument to back up what Chadd said about them not being degrees (in the sense of trigonometric angles). In my line of work, degrees mean degrees, so I held the belief for a long time that the Mako had 3° (in the trigonometric sense) because that is what I read. I had convinced myself a year ago (when I had my Mako's pitch reduced slightly by 0.5/32nds on a Blackstone machine) that they couldn't possibly be degrees in the trigonometric sense. I tend to think about things like this in great detail so I appreciate having a true understanding of what is going on. I generally assume there are some others on here that are interested in trying to understand things to that same level of detail. Even still, since I first joined the forum, I have learned to apply a filter to the things I post, because I'd rather avoid the feather ruffling.

OK... please tell me where I went wrong below... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2A94zJKeEY5cWdBc1lLTHR4YVE/edit?usp=sharing

Yeah... I'm convinced now that the usage of the term 3 degrees is a misnomer/misusage. Here is a blade/holder overlayed on one that has been rotated by 3 degrees (in the true since of the word degrees). The intersection is shown in green. In other words, the green area shows what you would have to do to a blade to contour a TRUE 3 DEGREES into it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2A94zJKeEY5TkpCMFFfUF95czQ/edit?usp=sharing

I don't think so (about the skate size making a difference) DISCLAIMER: I HAVE NEVER PROFILED SKATES BEFORE... THIS IS JUST A GUESS FROM BRIEFLY LOOKING AT BLACKSTONE PROFILING EQUIPMENT ONCE When I looked at the equipment it appeared to me that there was a pivot point at the center of the blade left to right (actually the center point is measured from the toe of the boot to the heel of the boot). Then offset from that pivot point (in X) was a screw type device that could move (rotating about the pivot point) the point at that offset in Y by the amounts on the knob (I believe they were 1/32nds). So to determine the amount in degrees I think you would have to divide the number of 32nds by the size of the x offset and take the inverse tangent. So I believe a true ROTATION of the skate blade (around that center pivot point) is occurring and therefore the amount of pitch doesn't have anything to do with the skate size. If what I THINK I saw was correct, you would need to know the length of that x offset in order to calculate the amount in degrees (it may be such that 1/32 = 1deg?). I asked what the distance of that x offset was but I didn't get an answer. I have heard (don't know if it's true) that some other companies use millimeters for their profiling equipment instead of 32nds. I would love for someone who actually knows for certain how it works to correct me if I am wrong, because I would like to know (for real) how it works.

In my opinion, the difference between the two in glide (and bite) is pretty slight. I would think that unless you have a good person sharpening that you trust, the variability of the sharpen would be a bigger difference than the 95/75 vs. 100/50. Before I had my own sharpener and was getting FBV, I would sometimes feel slippage in various parts of the blade with the SAME setting from sharpen to sharpen.

In my opinion 95/75 has a little more bite than 100/50 (I have a sharpener and have tried them both). The only thing that is "the same" between 95/75 and 100/50 is the edge angle (the angle that the fang makes with the flat). The thing that they are actually comparing to ROH in those charts is the edge angle of the FBV to the effective edge angle of a comparable ROH. I would concur with you that it makes sense that the taller edge would give you a little more bite.

It's not rocket science, but I think calling it "pretty damn easy" would be over stating it somewhat.

I think you guys are actually saying that the radius in ROH does in fact mean radius (and not diameter) after all. I hope I'm reading you right. Because I did the math once and thought I understood where Blackstone gets their FBV to ROH comparisons, but that was all based on radius MEANING radius. If it is in fact diameter, I'm going to be completely confused.

Not that bad. I used an Arduino Uno clone, these 7 segment displays, and this for the RF link (plus a few other odds and ends). It ended up costing a little bit more than I wanted it to but I was really just looking for a project so that I could learn how to use the Arduino and this seemed like a good and useful way to do that.

Made me a battery powered, radio controlled scoreboard for pickup hockey. I can hang it outside the glass at center ice across from the benches. I can change the score from a fob I have at the bench. Yes I realize there is already a scoreboard at the rink. But in our 18 to 17 defensive battles in 1.5 hours of pickup, everyone is too lazy to keep going to the scorer's box to change the score. Now I won't have to hear the constant "what's the score" question 50 times a game.

Have any of you guys seen or used the new BR1000 edge checker? If so, can you please explain to me how it works? Not having to take the skate off to check is an interesting feature. http://www.blademaster.ca/Catalog/document.pdf (page 17) Edit: Nevermind... I just figured it out. It assumes the blade is at a right angle to the holder's "anvil" (a fair assumption). Seems like it would work as long as that face of the "anvil" is perfectly flat and at a perfect right angle.

I had the original bat gauge and didn't like it (they have supposedly improved it since). I also had a relatively inexpensive edge checker with a magnet on each piece and holes in it. I also made myself one like that out of angle aluminum and two magnets. Once I got my BR100 I found that the cheap edge checker was way off from what the BR100 says (I believe the BR100). I was able to bend the inexpensive one's T part to "match" the BR100 but I still use the BR100 (I in fact gave the cheap one away to a guy that sharpens at a rink and didn't have an edge checker). I vote for the BR100.

I was getting a little knee pain in one knee but I'm old and mildly tore that knee's MCL around two years ago. I had my pitch reduced a little in the runners. The runner now has a +1 on Blackstone equipment. The change has caused the knee pain to go away (mostly). For grins I put the old stock runners back on for a week or two and the knee pain returned.

I didn't quit listening to music in 1977! ;) I've been into "underground" music since my teens and dubstep, until just recently, would have been considered by most to be "underground". The Clash is still pretty much "The Only Band That Mattered"... At least to me.

Video of the old men (including me) playing pickup hockey...

Yeah... I had already resigned myself to the fact that I would have to wear moleskin for the rest of the life of the skate. I only tried it again without moleskin after it healed because I was hoping that the "rolling out" did some good. I was happily surprised when I found that I didn't need moleskin anymore. I don't know for sure if it was the rolling out OR some toughening up of the skin... I'm just glad it's gone.

I wanted to reduce the pitch a little because it was my belief that it was contributing to some knee pain I was getting in one of my old, previously injured knees. It was my belief that both the holder and the runner contributed to the pitch in the Mako. I asked Easton and I got a reply from the Skate Product Manager stating that the pitch of the Mako is +2mm and that it is ALL in the holder. I already had a meeting set up with the guy that is the expert at my LHS to "measure" the runner pitch by examining it with the profiling equipment so I went ahead and had him do that. He told me before he started that if the Easton Skate Product Manager says that it is all in the holder and that the runner is neutral, he would believe it. However, he went ahead and "measured" it (on Blackstone equipment) and he came up with a pitch at the runner of somewhere between +1(32nds) and +2(32nds). So I split the difference and assumed that it was around +1.5(32nds) at the runner and had him do mine at +1(32nds) to reduce it just slightly. I wanted to reduce it just slightly because I like the forward pitch but I wanted to give my knee a bit of relief. My bad knee is doing better now (although the pain has not gone completely away yet). I may reduce it further if it doesn't go away completely. For those who are familiar with how profiling works (I'm definitely not including myself in that group)... I believe that some of the pitch comes from the height of the towers. But, Is it possible that the pitch of the runner is actually neutral but that it screws into the holder in a biased (non-neutral) manner? Wouldn't that cause it to appear that the runner had pitch (explaining why the expert "measured" +1 to +2) while the Product Manager said that the runners are neutral and that all the pitch comes from the holder?

I think the problem is simply because there is a corner in the back where no other skate has one (the little gap between the tendon guard and the top of the back of the boot). Since your leg is able to (and does) move back and forth in the area of that corner, the corner rubs and causes the blister. I had it. I tried the heating and rolling out but I would be hard pressed to believe that it actually moved it out any. I wore moleskin on it until it healed and then I never got it again. I think I would more likely believe that the elimination of the problem in my case was due to a bit of toughening up or callousing of the skin.

Went to the Blues/Dallas game Saturday night. Derek Roy was wearing Makos. Of course Gonchar was also wearing them. I was also a little surprised to see a pair of RS's out there.

You might be able to find someone who does goalie skate conversions on Mako's and buy one from them if they aren't sold elsewhere yet.