"Hi-Lo" FAQ and New 76-76-80-80 Discussion

[DaveTheWave 0]

The "Hi-Lo" concept is similar to that of Formula 1 race cars. The rear wheels are taller and wider for speed and the front wheels the contrapositive - shorter and thinner for control on turns. I think the reason why Rink Rats have worked well for people is that they are designed with "M-Tech" or maximum footprint (what surface of the wheel comes into contact with the floor) making them ideal for the rear wheels. The front wheels would thus be more effective in this setup with a harder and sharper, and thus thinner footprint for control (Labeda Dynasty comes to mind).

That's generally where the race car analogy stops. It is arguable whether a trade off for speed is better with the new 76mm setup because it's up to the player which tuning he'd like on his skates - are you a power forward and could sacrifice some control and turning ability for more speed? Or are you a defenseman looking to retain as much dexterity as possible? Or maybe you are defenseman that wouldn't mind the trade off, etc.? Do you not like the added length to your edge (see the ice forums for people who have switched out their longer LS2 Power frames from the One90's for the LS2's) Again it comes down to personal preference, and hopefully for you, not marketing. Evidence of this understanding is on the rink... there are a lot of players sticking with their older skates, especially veterans.

[BrunoZ 0]

I think that the difference with the regular 72-80 HiLo will depend quite a lot of your foot size.

IMHO, the positioning of the front wheel axle relatively to your foot front support point (sorry, don't know the proper English term) is critical. Moving it 3mm forward might make a bigger difference that it looks (the chassis is 6mm longer, I assume that the added length is equally divided between front and rear, which is probably wrong).

When the wheels get worn, it doesn't change that relative position. It just lowers the skates. So having 76mm wheels in front instead of 72mm is not just like having new wheels compared to worn wheels. It moves the front axle forward and the rear axle backward. And the smaller your foot is, the bigger the relative difference will be.

I've been exclusively riding Mission's 72-80mm HiLo chassis since 99 (size 10 boots), and really love to have the front wheel as recessed as possible for a lot of mobility (which in turn wears it a lot as much of my weight is on it when cornering). So I'm quite eager to see how the new chassis will behave.

So my question is : how will the new chassis be positioned compared to the old 72-80 ? Will Mission try to preserve mostly the front or the rear axle position, or preserve the same centering ? What would you guys like ?

[Patrick67 1]

I'm not sure what I would like/prefer.

I always have custom skates because Mission distribution is immensly poor here in Scandinavia, we don't have any Mission skates besides A50 from the previous

05 line <_<

And CCM/Rbk Tri-di chassis is terrible when you play outdoors and have to change wheels alot.

Bauer Skates are not worth it.

And Tour isn't available either.

So I have Red Star Alloy's (Hi-Lo) on a Vector 10.0 boot. A friend of mine always mounts chassis' for me and his philosphy is to put them a little (tiny bit) more towards the front of the boot. Which he feels emulates a normal Iceskate better in positioning than what most manufactors do on stock skates.

Don't know if it's an advantage or the contrary, but I don't mind playing on them the way he mounts em.

[Fury of One 6]

I never understood why they got rid of flat frames in the first place. I think all this Hi-Lo, Hu'mer chassis are overrated. When I had to switch I felt no difference in speed, control or maneuverability. So where will it all end? Eventually, will we see and all 100mm wheel configuration or something ridiculous like that? Bring back the Sure-Grips. End PSA.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

LOL that's why I bought a pair of Sure-Grips for $1 on HG last year.

[Fury of One 6]

LOL that's why I bought a pair of Sure-Grips for $1 on HG last year.

Damn, I woulda jumped on that deal.

[chrisg19 5]

Formula 1 race car wheels are nearly identical in size from the side profile. They are mounted on 13 inch rims. They are different widths though. The rears are wider for grip because they have to put all that horsepower to the ground, but with that width comes drag. Don't think for a moment that they would not make the tires narrower if they could come up with a formulation that could transfer the power without slipping.

A better example of your analogy would be that of a dragster with its massive rear wheels, and the smaller almost bicycle like front wheels. That would be closer to the "race car" analogy. But then if the hi-lo theory were correct then that would be the ultimate turning machine with its big rear wheels for speed, and its litle wheels for cornering, but that dragster isn't really such a good cornering car. Why, simply put the only thing that will affect any vehicles turning radius, which includes roller chassis is the length of the wheelbase in contact with the ground surface.

Way back when the Hi-los were first introduced the whole selling point was not better turning radius, but actually lowering the balls of the foot closer to the surface more like an ice boot to effectively lower the center of gravity. Any speed gain generated by the 80 mm rear wheels is instantlly negated by the smaller front wheels, unless you are able to skate only on those two rear wheels. The better turning characteristics are a product of the shortened wheelbase, and the lower CoG produced by the smaller wheels. Tour found a way to get the ball of the foot down to the same level as that of a Hi-Lo, and no one complained about the turning radius, even though the wheelbase was slightly longer based on 4-80 mm wheels. Most did notice an increase in speed though.

The Hi-lo and Hummer for that matter are flat frames. As long as you have all four wheels in contact with the surface your turning radius will be dictated by the wheelbase length. The only frame that actually worked to shorten the turning radius was the Tuuk rocker, because you never had more than 3 wheels in contact with the surface thereby dramatically shortening the wheelbase length. The Rockers downfall was a lack of straight line stability, and stopping power as a result of never having those four wheels in contact.

In theory a hockey player should go with the largest wheels possible that would not effectively lengthen the wheelbase to make the skates ability to turn a hiderance for that player. Which is eactly what the ice hockey side does with longer, less radiused skates.

chris

[gman 0]

So it sounds like if you want agility and mobility use the TUUK rocker chassis. If you want agility/mobility with four wheels on the floor go with the 72/80 hi-lo. If you want speed go with the 4x80 tours. If you want something in between maybe the new 76/80 hi-lo will fit the bill. If you want to spend money, time, and headache on a bunch of different wheels go with one of the other one-up types. I have not used enough different brands to be able to give definitive evaluations, these are just suppositions based on designs. Am I close??

[chrisg19 5]

I agree with your suppositions. You summed it up well.

chris

[Larry54 243]

The Rockers downfall was a lack of straight line stability, and stopping power as a result of never having those four wheels in contact.

As far as stopping ability goes, I remember a post on this board about a trend among elite players of using harder wheels on the rear of their hi-lo setups to have better control over their stopping, meaning that more grip is not necessarily better for stopping. Just like too deep a hollow on ice skates gives too much bite and makes stopping more difficult to control. Wouldn't that mean that the reduced grip on a rocker chassis is not necessarily a hinderance to stopping well?

[Jim A 4]

the biggest issue with the rocker chassis was

1. dialing in the radius ..one goes through a fair amount of washouts before dialing it in..which usually winds up being ice radius + 1

2. flat spots...they just tear wheels up especially #2....i found stopping on them to be pretty easy...just had to emulate more of an ice style stop then just the toe (quick stops and starts) or heel of an inline

haha JR, I just found an old setup I put together a couple years ago..Flite Summit boot, HG 400 chassis...never used it...the frame is a Lg..too big..even on a 10.5

[Neo5370 132]

Formula 1 race car wheels are nearly identical in size from the side profile. They are mounted on 13 inch rims. They are different widths though. The rears are wider for grip because they have to put all that horsepower to the ground, but with that width comes drag. Don't think for a moment that they would not make the tires narrower if they could come up with a formulation that could transfer the power without slipping.

A better example of your analogy would be that of a dragster with its massive rear wheels, and the smaller almost bicycle like front wheels. That would be closer to the "race car" analogy. But then if the hi-lo theory were correct then that would be the ultimate turning machine with its big rear wheels for speed, and its litle wheels for cornering, but that dragster isn't really such a good cornering car. Why, simply put the only thing that will affect any vehicles turning radius, which includes roller chassis is the length of the wheelbase in contact with the ground surface.

Way back when the Hi-los were first introduced the whole selling point was not better turning radius, but actually lowering the balls of the foot closer to the surface more like an ice boot to effectively lower the center of gravity. Any speed gain generated by the 80 mm rear wheels is instantlly negated by the smaller front wheels, unless you are able to skate only on those two rear wheels. The better turning characteristics are a product of the shortened wheelbase, and the lower CoG produced by the smaller wheels. Tour found a way to get the ball of the foot down to the same level as that of a Hi-Lo, and no one complained about the turning radius, even though the wheelbase was slightly longer based on 4-80 mm wheels. Most did notice an increase in speed though.

The Hi-lo and Hummer for that matter are flat frames. As long as you have all four wheels in contact with the surface your turning radius will be dictated by the wheelbase length. The only frame that actually worked to shorten the turning radius was the Tuuk rocker, because you never had more than 3 wheels in contact with the surface thereby dramatically shortening the wheelbase length. The Rockers downfall was a lack of straight line stability, and stopping power as a result of never having those four wheels in contact.

In theory a hockey player should go with the largest wheels possible that would not effectively lengthen the wheelbase to make the skates ability to turn a hiderance for that player. Which is eactly what the ice hockey side does with longer, less radiused skates.

chris

If you're right it sounds to me there is no gimmick to beat physics.

Just like ice players deal with the pro's and con's of the radius they choose inline players may just have to deal with the choices out there. Rocker/Hummer/New and Old HiLo's.