Tblades?

[Jason Harris 31]

As for the science of t-blades, up to now all we've seen is manufacturer claims and anecdotal evidence. Sometimes the "self-fullfilling prophecy" is amazing.

When independent controlled test results are done, if the t-blade is everything the manufacturer claims, I'll be the first to support it. The proof that it is better performance wise will be when the pros embrace it en mass.

That's fair enough. Because you may be right about my own usage -- I may be having a case of self-fulfilling prophesy! :lol:

[Rustybender 0]

In fact, I've querried physics scientists who all have debunked the t-blade claim that the thin piece of steel heats up and melts ice better. In fact, they say, the opposite is true. Less mass= quicker loss of heat. This is basic physics.

This was my initial thought too, and if all hockey players did was stand around on the ice, it would be correct. If you were to set a standard blade and a t'blade on ice, the t'blade would drop in temp much faster. However, this experiment does not replicate actual conditions. There's alot more to the process than steel on ice.

A more realistic test would be for two people to hit the ice during a game. One with t'blades, one with standard blades. Put them on the same line so their skating experiences are similar. (When you replicate game conditions, you see how little time you blades actually spend on the ice.) With your blades spending the majority of their time off the ice, I would guess heat loss through ice contact is minimal. To know for sure, use a laser surface temp gauge to measure surface temp of each blade before they first hit the ice, after each shift, and before they start a shift.

Doing a test this way would take into account: thickness of the metal, time off the ice, friction, the holder, and body (foot) heat. I really don't know what the results would be. I have my theories and the "physics scientists" have theirs. We're probably both wrong.

All that being said, I honesty doubt there are any signifigant performance gians to be had with regards to heat conduction. I think any thermal advantages would be like shaving 15 grams off of a OPS (meaningless.)

I like the idea of t'blades because my sharpening options suck:

1. $8 at local rink for a complete hack job

2. $3.50 at a shop an hour away that is either really good or really bad.

3. $4.50 at a shop an hour away that is really good, but takes ~30 minutes.

So if I want a consistent and good sharpening, it takes 2 and a half hours from my day. (2 hours of driving and a half hour of waiting.)

$15 for a fresh set of blades seems like a bargain to me. If I get longer blade life and better performance thrown in, thats a bonus.

[Dave 1]

Just as a side-note: Dr Kunz (CEO t'blade) has recently made it clear that t'blades have not been designed with performance enhancement in mind. They were constructed for easy of use, i.e. ease of getting a fresh sharp edge by changing runners.

The possibility of getting a new and consistent "sharpening" whenever and whereever I need it is what makes t'blades my choice.

As Dr. Kunz has put it, the weight reduction and the increased glide are a nice benefit of t'blades, but it's not their reason-of-being.

[jimmy 194]

In fact, I've querried physics scientists who all have debunked the t-blade claim that the thin piece of steel heats up and melts ice better. In fact, they say, the opposite is true. Less mass= quicker loss of heat. This is basic physics.

This was my initial thought too, and if all hockey players did was stand around on the ice, it would be correct. If you were to set a standard blade and a t'blade on ice, the t'blade would drop in temp much faster. However, this experiment does not replicate actual conditions. There's alot more to the process than steel on ice.

A more realistic test would be for two people to hit the ice during a game. One with t'blades, one with standard blades. Put them on the same line so their skating experiences are similar. (When you replicate game conditions, you see how little time you blades actually spend on the ice.) With your blades spending the majority of their time off the ice, I would guess heat loss through ice contact is minimal. To know for sure, use a laser surface temp gauge to measure surface temp of each blade before they first hit the ice, after each shift, and before they start a shift.

Doing a test this way would take into account: thickness of the metal, time off the ice, friction, the holder, and body (foot) heat. I really don't know what the results would be. I have my theories and the "physics scientists" have theirs. We're probably both wrong.

All that being said, I honesty doubt there are any signifigant performance gians to be had with regards to heat conduction. I think any thermal advantages would be like shaving 15 grams off of a OPS (meaningless.)

I like the idea of t'blades because my sharpening options suck:

1. $8 at local rink for a complete hack job

2. $3.50 at a shop an hour away that is either really good or really bad.

3. $4.50 at a shop an hour away that is really good, but takes ~30 minutes.

So if I want a consistent and good sharpening, it takes 2 and a half hours from my day. (2 hours of driving and a half hour of waiting.)

$15 for a fresh set of blades seems like a bargain to me. If I get longer blade life and better performance thrown in, thats a bonus.

Actually, the best way to determine "thermal" performance is to have a controlled test between a t-blade and a regular blade. Humans/game conditions can't be used, too many variables. All parameters have to be the same, hollow, radius, and total weight on the blade at the ice surface. An inclined ice track would have to be developed and the two blades given a series of runs down the track, and the average calculated.

I totally agree t-blades are awesome for those who cant find a good sharpener, or it's inconveinent to get to the good sharpener, absolutely no argument there.

[top 0]

A little off topic, but today i just bought myself a pair of Vector ZG130's from my LHS. On my old LS2's i used a 9 forward profile with a 3/8 hallow. My question is, if i want the same set up for my tblades what kind of blades would i need to buy?

[Steve123 0]

I was just wondering what you guys would recomend for holders. I had tuuk custom+ on my last pair of grafs and was wondering if the ls2's are any better and they can be put on grafs also right? I didn't have problems with my custom+ I was just wondering if the ls2's are better.

[hockey12345 0]

don't buy t blades you will regret it

[top 0]

I got them with the skates, I only paid 89.99 for vector ZG 130's so i couldn't go wrong, but i just wanna know what set up i should use. On my old LS2's i used a 9 forward profile with a 3/8 hallow. My question is, if i want the same set up for my tblades what kind of blades would i need to buy? I don't really care if they suck or not i just wanna know what set up i need.

[odp 0]

This will help you with blade size (or you could just look at what blades are on there right now)

http://www.hockeymonkey.com/tbladerunners.html

3/8 holllow = 11

9' radius would most likely be an S rocker. (Can't remember if it went 9-11-13, or 11-11-13 for radii for S-M-L rockers)

So S-11-XXX runners.

[rjmurp01 0]

Does anyone know if the T'Blade company has plans to partner with other skate mfg's to offer runners that will work with holders other than the T'Blade brand holders? i.e. T'Blade runners on RBK/CCM E-Pro Holders, etc.