Roller Radius Change?

[Neo5370 132]

If I wanted a hi lo set up to mimic about a 7ft rocker on an ice blade, could I just put smaller wheels at the front and back?

Maybe something like 76-80-72-68 ?

Or would it better to use a junior size frame and perhaps do the same thing (put smaller wheels at the front and back)

I've thought about the rocker chassis, but I'd prefer to stick so a solid (no moving parts) chassis.

[ajd91187 0]

that wouldn't work cause you'd be completely on your heels... I don't think there is really a way to mimic an Ice Skate's radius, but i could be wrong.

EDIT: Spelling

[Neo5370 132]

Really? Did you mean I would be on my heels if the 68mm were in the back, cuz I mean the 76mm wheel to be in the back and the 68mm to be in the front.

Keep the comments and advice coming. It's all greatly appreciated.

[ajd91187 0]

I'm still not sure it would work cause the one in the back might not be touching the ground at all times, unless that's what you're looking for...

[zingbergeur 0]

I had an old pair of Nike Zoom Air's circa 1999ish that had a chassis that came with 4 plastic "spacers" that lifted the front and rear wheel. It made turning easier I guess, but probably at the cost of speed. I tried it for a few skates, and I kinda thought it was just a gimmick.

EDIT: I guess it was 8 spacers...2 for each wheel, 4 per skate.

[sdcopp 1]

On any chassis, you can improve manuverability at the cost of speed by using smaller wheels. It won't be as exact a science as blade rockering. For example, if you take a standard 72/80 hilo setup, and put on 68/76 wheels, they will turn better, etc, but will decrease overall speed since they have a higher rolling resistance than bigger wheels. You can also place a smaller wheel on the front of your skate to rocker the toe, but I've personally found that feels extremely unstable. The most important thing to keep in mind though is the size difference the frame is designed for. A 72/80 setup has an 8mm gap to keep the wheels level front to back, so you have to keep that same 8mm difference for the skate to maintain what it was designed to do. Some of the older flat frames like the Sure-Grip 405 and Final Factor II do have the spacers to rocker the wheels w/o changing the sizes. I hope this helps you

[the_game 452]

I am sure MDE3 will chime in anytime now on this topic...

[Neo5370 132]

ha! yes, he is very knowledgable.

I figure the length of blade that is contact with the ice is very short, and if I'm standing at a standstill on my "rockered" wheels, then the only points of contact will be the two middle wheels which may roughly be equal in "length" or "distance" as the blade.

However since the wheels don't curve as smoothly as a blade, rocking back and forth from my heels to my toes on the wheels might not feel very smooth.

And balancing on the two middle wheels for a straight stride/glide might be iffy.

I just figure since I can do it on the ice w/ so little blade I miiiiiight be able to do it on wheels? Ahh well.

[zingbergeur 0]

I found a little more info on the subject of "fixed rocker technology" @

smarthockey.com

"Fixed Rockers can be created on straight frame, Hi-Lo® and V-Form chassis by simply putting a smaller wheel in the front and rear positions of the chassis. By creating a fixed rocker chassis it seems that you'd be able to mimic the curved or radiused ice skate blade. This may seem true at first but upon closer inspection there are obvious flaws to this technology.

If an ice hockey skate blade is curved like a rocking chair, which has the ability to transition smoothly from front to back gradually changing the ramp angles, a fixed rocker is almost more like a square wheel or a rocking chair where the bottom is like the bottom of a hexagon with three distinct skating planes where the transition is extremely abrupt. There are two major problems with a fixed rocker. First you can only be on two wheels which only accounts for 33% of the chassis. Ice hockey skates and the TUUK Rocker actually allow you to be on the front 70% of the blade or chassis when you skate or accelerate, the back 70% when you turn and the center 40% when you stop and pivot. Consequently not only is the transition from front to back extremely jerky on a fixed rocker chassis but you're slowed down considerably due to the fact that you have so little blade on the skating surface during the push off and gliding phase of your skating stride."

[chrisg19 5]

The length of the wheelbase is what is going to determine the radius of your skates arc. By placing smaller wheels at the far ends you can shorten your wheel base, but then you will only be skating on two wheels at a time. Either you will be on the front two, the center two, or the rear two. In any case you will have a greatly unstable skate. The rocker was pretty ingenious, in that when it rocked it lifted either the forward most or rearward most wheels, shortening your running wheel base, while still allowing you to be on the other three wheels for greater stability (most people don't realize the center two wheels have a greater distance between them than a standard chassis to provide a longer wheelbase while on three wheels for stability). Personally I like the Rockers, because I like the manueverability they provide. Their only real shortcoming was the fact that when you hockey stop, you are only stopping on three wheels as compared to a hi-los 4 wheels. Good luck, but I think the rocker is your bes option if you are set on mimicing a 7 foot skate radius.

chris

[Stampede 0]

I know you said you don't want moving parts, but if your trying to immitate an ice radius a rocker is the way forward.

I tried it originally cos we play on a small rink, so plenty of tight turns and speed bursts. Haven't looked back since....and I started roller wearing the old quad skates before inlines came about. Had the straight chassis, then the hi-lo and the rocker is by far the best for control and acceleration.

[Neo5370 132]

Yeah. I guess at the prices that rockers can be had for, they're worth a try.

I've read some members favorable reviews but I am paranoid that all it takes is one hard shot to that middle mechanism and poof, it's cracked or damaged.

[Jim A 4]

for a true 7ft radius..the Rocker chassis is the way to go..

for a general more ice feel..put a 68mm on the toe wheel of a Hi Lo...

in roller i tend to go the other way..ie. ice is 9ft..when i used a Rocker Chassis..it was 10ft..I was wiping out at 9ft..been using a 78mm in the back lately..and like it..

[zingbergeur 0]

Yeah. I guess at the prices that rockers can be had for, they're worth a try.

I've read some members favorable reviews but I am paranoid that all it takes is one hard shot to that middle mechanism and poof, it's cracked or damaged.

Yeah, the rocker is only $40 at 1800faceoff.

I'm thinking of throwing some on my old Tacks just to give it a try because I'd still have my current skates to fall back on.

[Eazy_b97 1]

If you're willing to go the Ebay route, they generally go for under $20 and there seems to be alot of them recently.

[Neo5370 132]

Yeah, I saw them on ebay for pretty cheap.

I'm kicking myself for not gettting them from hockeygiant when they were 4.99 though <_< :(

[notquitedeadyet 13]

I just put rockers on extra ice boots for my son & myself, mostly so he would keep the right fourm for skating on ice. I'm no expert on roller, but it seems to make my stride feel more like what I'm used to on ice, especially when skating backwards.

[Stampede 0]

I think the rockers are more durable when taking pucks.

Alloy chassis bend/dent when hit by pucks I've even seen some snap.

All the guys I know who use rockers have had the same ones on several pairs of skates, as they are plastic I guess they must flex and recover when pucks hit them.