What's the big deal with skates becoming so light?

[mack 44]

I play hockey the way it was meant to be played: Bubble-top style. Keep me on my track and I'm happy.

[jimmy 194]

if you profile a skate to have more blade you go faster right?

If you have two runners, one longer and one shorter, but with the same profile, wouldn't both runners have the same amount of steel in contact with the ice ? And if so, wouldn't there be no difference in performance ? I really am trying to understand how the longer steel on the LS2 could result in better performance.

You are correct. If the working radius are the same the glide will be the same.

[JR Boucicaut 3810]

if you profile a skate to have more blade you go faster right?

If you have two runners, one longer and one shorter, but with the same profile, wouldn't both runners have the same amount of steel in contact with the ice ? And if so, wouldn't there be no difference in performance ? I really am trying to understand how the longer steel on the LS2 could result in better performance.

No. The longer blade will have more contact within the working radius, hence providing more straightaway speed and stability.

Okay, I misread your comment. Yes, if you have say, a size 12 skate at a 9' radius and a size 6 skate at a 9' radius, the working radius will be the same. But a longer working radius will do what my first answer said.

[jimmy 194]

Jimmy: what is the basis for your suspicion of any kind of testing? Is it natural scepticism or cynicism or is it based on something else?

When a company has test results, I would tend to refer to it as proprietary primary research rather than "hype". The relative merits and validity of that research would be more appropriately evaluated on the methodology used rather than the publication of the results.

There is well established law about product claims and standards in testing in both the US and Canada.

In the states it is under the FTC Act and the Lanham Act, in Canada it is primarily covered under the Advertising Standards Council.

Satatistics and Anaylisis 101.

Ok here's a good example. Company A says their composite stick is stronger. They conduct a lab test using a controlled method, e.g., a press that measures breaking point. They publish results that show how their stick compared to others tested. If results showed their stick was the strongest, they can certainly publish ads that say that. Of course, independent lab testing is preferred, to remove bias. But if their test methods were using a few players and asked their opinion on strenght, then, the whole test is biased.

I've asked every customer if they noticed more speed from their LS powers, not one answered yes. In addition, we've seen no supporting documentation or evidence, or tests that prove or support the claim of "more power". If it has been done, then why not is it available. Many want to know how the LS Power steel gives more power because of the added lenght of steel. That simple. If the test was simply a few players skating on the new skates and saying/gut feeling they felt they were going faster, we need to know that too. Just as you said, the methodology is very important. But if I had results why wouldn't I want to publish them if they were positive?

[NuggyBuggy 0]

if you profile a skate to have more blade you go faster right?

If you have two runners, one longer and one shorter, but with the same profile, wouldn't both runners have the same amount of steel in contact with the ice ? And if so, wouldn't there be no difference in performance ? I really am trying to understand how the longer steel on the LS2 could result in better performance.

No. The longer blade will have more contact within the working radius, hence providing more straightaway speed and stability.

Okay, I misread your comment. Yes, if you have say, a size 12 skate at a 9' radius and a size 6 skate at a 9' radius, the working radius will be the same. But a longer working radius will do what my first answer said.

My head nearly exploded after unsuccessfully trying to figure out what I was not getting ! Thanks for clarifying.

[hockeymom 2]

Jimmy: what is the basis for your suspicion of any kind of testing?  Is it natural scepticism or cynicism or is it based on something else?

When a company has test results, I would tend to refer to it as proprietary primary research rather than "hype".  The relative merits and validity of that research would be more appropriately evaluated on the methodology used rather than the publication of the results.

There is well established law about product claims and standards in testing in both the US and Canada.

In the states it is under the FTC Act and the Lanham Act, in Canada it is primarily covered under the Advertising Standards Council.

Satatistics and Anaylisis 101.

Ok here's a good example. Company A says their composite stick is stronger. They conduct a lab test using a controlled method, e.g., a press that measures breaking point. They publish results that show how their stick compared to others tested. If results showed their stick was the strongest, they can certainly publish ads that say that. Of course, independent lab testing is preferred, to remove bias. But if their test methods were using a few players and asked their opinion on strenght, then, the whole test is biased.

I've asked every customer if they noticed more speed from their LS powers, not one answered yes. In addition, we've seen no supporting documentation or evidence, or tests that prove or support the claim of "more power". If it has been done, then why not is it available. Many want to know how the LS Power steel gives more power because of the added lenght of steel. That simple. If the test was simply a few players skating on the new skates and saying/gut feeling they felt they were going faster, we need to know that too. Just as you said, the methodology is very important. But if I had results why wouldn't I want to publish them if they were positive?

OK, so we'll put it down to cynicism...lol... do you seriously believe they used the "guy in the diner" approach?!

[jimmy 194]

Jimmy: what is the basis for your suspicion of any kind of testing?  Is it natural scepticism or cynicism or is it based on something else?

When a company has test results, I would tend to refer to it as proprietary primary research rather than "hype".  The relative merits and validity of that research would be more appropriately evaluated on the methodology used rather than the publication of the results.

There is well established law about product claims and standards in testing in both the US and Canada.

In the states it is under the FTC Act and the Lanham Act, in Canada it is primarily covered under the Advertising Standards Council.

Satatistics and Anaylisis 101.

Ok here's a good example. Company A says their composite stick is stronger. They conduct a lab test using a controlled method, e.g., a press that measures breaking point. They publish results that show how their stick compared to others tested. If results showed their stick was the strongest, they can certainly publish ads that say that. Of course, independent lab testing is preferred, to remove bias. But if their test methods were using a few players and asked their opinion on strenght, then, the whole test is biased.

I've asked every customer if they noticed more speed from their LS powers, not one answered yes. In addition, we've seen no supporting documentation or evidence, or tests that prove or support the claim of "more power". If it has been done, then why not is it available. Many want to know how the LS Power steel gives more power because of the added lenght of steel. That simple. If the test was simply a few players skating on the new skates and saying/gut feeling they felt they were going faster, we need to know that too. Just as you said, the methodology is very important. But if I had results why wouldn't I want to publish them if they were positive?

OK, so we'll put it down to cynicism...lol... do you seriously believe they used the "guy in the diner" approach?!

Where do you get cynicism from my post? Honestly, I don't know what they used, that's why I'm asking. You people with blind faith on advertising claims are really what the marketing guys (and snake oil salesmen) love.

[NuggyBuggy 0]

OK, so we'll put it down to cynicism...lol... do you seriously believe they used the "guy in the diner" approach?!

I wouldn't say jimmy's demand to see the data underlying these claims comes from cynicism. I think it comes from skepticism. Cynicism carries very negative connotations, whereas a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing for anyone evaluating claims of most any sort - and is probably anathema to you marketing people. I am not a pro, but as one of my posts here suggests, I too am skeptical here. I am begging to being educated here, mostly because I would LOVE one more reason to justify buying new skates. If I could read the studies - and I can read them - I might just buy the skates. The people who can't read the studies, won't. So why not put them out there ?

However, I know that is being unrealistic. Marketing wants to present products on their own terms. Letting the public themselves evaluate a product on the merits of lab tests or surveys or whatever BNH did or didn't do takes some control and thus power away from marketing and wouldn't always be in a marketing company's interest. I don't know how much of BNH's budget is in marketing and advertising but I'd bet it is a lot - arguably Nike is a marketing company first and a manufacturer second. Phil Knight, CEO of Nike, has said that "the most important thing we do is market the product". Marketing gains power when it products sell on the basis of ad campaigns, product placement, etc and inconsequential attributes like cosmetics, naming, endorsees, and a few grams here and there - all things that they can control. At this level of skate, I'd guess that differences in performance would be pretty marginal - else a majority of pros would be wearing one skate - and that sure wouldn't sell much $800 product if that were put out there. So all that remains is the hype.

OK hockeymarketingmom, fire away.

[JR Boucicaut 3810]

I don't think it is fair to slam NBH for this - EVERYONE does it.

[Chadd 916]

I don't think it is fair to slam NBH for this - EVERYONE does it.

I agree, but I would still like to see the test data from everyone made available.

[O-zone 0]

< LURK OFF>

Well, first off, let me say that this is a great discussion, another example of why MSH stands by itself when it comes to thought-provoking discourse and exchange of ideas.

NuggyBuggy is exactly right on differentiating between skepticism and cynicism. And I think skepticism is very healthy, provided of course that it is free of bias and accompanied by a proper degree of open-ness to opposing arguments and new information.

But I have to say that what is cynical is to equate marketing with some kind of superficial treatment of the facts (and I say this as someone who is not a marketing guy).

The goal of marketing is to tell a compelling story to the consumer. But there is good marketing and there is bad marketing. Bad marketing is the kind which limits itself to the superficial aspects of the product whereas good marketing is closely integrated with and built around a strong product development process which in turn is based on real goals that matter to the intended consumer for the product. For a high-end skate, that means performance (i.e., skating and playing hockey), while also considering and trying to address the many other aspects which play into the purchase decisions made by the consumer and even more importantly into his ultimate assessment of the product after he buys it and uses it.

So when you reflect on the quote from Phil Knight, I can assure you that what he is referring to is the kind of marketing I talk about above. Because another concept at Nike (and certainly at Nike Bauer) which is often heard is that "product is king". Which is only to say that the best marketing in the world cannot make up for a product which has not been developed properly.

KC

< LURK ON >

[NuggyBuggy 0]

I did not mean to sound as if I was bashing on BNH in particular. I know that everyone does it. BNH just ended up seeming to be the target of my post because this discussion turned first mostly on the One90 skate and then on the documentation (or lack of same) of performance benefits of the LS power holder, and because Nike is Nike, possibly the world's foremost marketing company.

I appreciate that my post was a cynical one, and that marketing need not be as sinister as it can be. It is neither good nor bad. If a company produced a brand new skate or shoe with performance demonstrably better than all other skates or shoes, as determined by independent testing with results readily available, it wouldn't need nearly as large of a marketing budget. When the differences are minor or even non-existant, that is when marketing sharpens its teeth and makes its money. Let's be honest, an empire wasn't built (partly) on Air Jordans because kids (or MJ himself) played better basketball in them.

Getting back to hockey, I for one am intrigued by the One90 skate and do not doubt that it may be a wonderful skate as there are genuine advances therein. What hangs me up is that the NikeBauer website claims that the longer runner was designed to "increase speed and energy", and some of us want to understand how it does that. Is this claim just marketing or is there theory and research to back it up, and if so - why not put it out there ? Actually, we know that NBH must have the research, we just don't know to what degree, if any, it supports the claim. Since we're talking to the horse, maybe we can get it straight from the mouth. In the absence of data, such claims can sound like a marketing snowjob to skeptics like me.

I am going to make a pledge here. If we can see either theory or data supporting the claim that the longer runner of the One90 holder will increase performance, if they fit me, I will buy a pair. I'm sure what I buy or don't buy is irrelevant to NBH and everyone else here, but know this: I make this promise knowing I will face certain death at the hands of my wife.

[hockeymom 2]

I have been going back-to-back today since before 9 am (somedays they actually expect me to work LOL). I will reread this thread after I get some lunch and see if "HockeyMarketingMom" - LOL - needs to reply to anything else...

NuggyBuggy: In general, to make a complete study available to YOU... also GIFTS their competitors with extensive research. This is proprietary, primary research. The main (and arguably only) difference between major manufacturers from any industry is the research and development they put into their products. Now I know jimmy will understand that!

There is nothing machaivellian about it: Doors are locked at P&G so the Tide team has no idea what the Cheer team is doing. These are brands owned by the same manufacturer.

There has been a lot of research that has been published or presented at symposims on figure skating and speed skating. I have been fascinated reading these studies and applying what I have gleaned from them into hockey. That might help in understanding.

[O-zone 0]

Ok, I am back, got a fresh cup of coffee, let's go over some things.

Hockeymom is right about the confidential aspect of publishing details regarding testing, especially with respect to proprietary testing protocols and experimental designs. I am not saying it will never happen, personally I would like to see more dissemination of the research and testing that we do, but it is not a snap of the fingers to just throw stuff out there.

In any event, I am not certain off the top of my head as to what validation testing was done with respect to the LS Power blade. I would be interested to know from Jimmy what he is referring to in telling us that "NBH also did a "test" that said that the LS power steel made you faster". Was this a quote from a rep or something in our literature or on our website, or what? I am only asking because that will help me find out the basis for that statement, while at the same time I am checking here in R&D regarding the testing history of that product.

I can tell you that setting up a proper conclusive test to validate that claim is not an easy exercise. To do it right involves a lot of time and effort to ensure that there is proper isolation of factors, controls, number of subjects, randomization and elimination of bias etc etc. And at the end of the day, it can be tough to produce a statistically significant result, given that we are talking about a difference of mm in the length of the runner. But the testing we do manage to do is always useful in at least ensuring that there are no unintended results or worse, results which are opposite to the intent of the design.

So how did the idea that the longer steel would help with speed come about? Well, as far as I know, it actually started with feedback from some very good hockey players, at the NHL level, international, and junior. We would hear from guys who would insist that we put on holders one size up so that they could get the most speed possible. Interesting, something we filed away but did not forget about.

Then, we find ourselves developing the new LS holder and one of the things that emerges during development is that the new material has a different shrink factor which means that a different length of steel will be required. Discussion ensues, is this a problem, what are the implications etc. Then we recall the story about some very speedy players who have told us that a longer runner is a good thing.

So we try to understand why it is a good thing, why a longer runner can help with speed. With the radius not changing, the ice-runner contact distance does not change, as many others have correctly pointed out.

But as we dive deeper into it, checking the literature on speed-skating etc, turns out that there is a bio-mechanical basis for the claim. Basically it boils down to the fact that velocity is a product of stride rate and stroke length. Increasing the length of the runner will clearly result in the possibility for a skater to develop a longer push as he has additional blade to rock through as he transfers weight and developes power during the push-off phase. Yes, we are talking mm but to help convince yourself this is true, visualize a more extreme case, a very short runner vs a very long runner and you can see how the stroke length varies with runner length.

A skater who can then attain his top stride rate (which, by the way, is something that tends to be helped when skates are lighter) now with a longer stroke length, will achieve better speed by the formula above. It is sort of like the situation when you are on a bike, when you move up into higher gears while maintaining your pedaling cadence you go faster and faster.

So that, in a highly simplified (I hope) nutshell, is the theory and bio-mechanics behind the statement that the longer runner of the LS power holder can allow you to go faster (you won't hear me say "WILL" make you faster - see below).

But no piece of gear can do it for anyone by magic. There are many other important and critical factors which define performance level, from the hugely important technique/ability aspect to fitness and strength and let's not forget (speaking as a coach) attitude.

Sorry for the long post (I have actually left out a whole lot of other stuff I wanted to say). Hope it helps.

Ken

[jimmy 194]

Ken, very good explanation. Thanks for tackling a tough issue. I can't recall where I saw that NBH did a test, but I'm positive I read it because it triggered a light in my mind to get the test results/methodology. T-blades made similar claims of speed, but never showed any test results, either, so "alleged" hype is not limited to NBH. Consumers are sceptical. We are not asking for trade secrets here, simple answers. It is possible to say how a product was tested and how you can make a performance claim, without letting competitors on to your secrets. If it was a seat of the pants test fine, we should know that, if it was more detailed, even better. If some NHL and speed skaters told NBH that longer blades made them go faster because of bio-mechanics and stride rate, I wouldn't say that in itself s conclusive unless some controlled tests on the new Power blades were done to back it up. Yes, a lot of time and effort is required to back up claims, so if you are going to make them, you should have the data. If you can get some test methodology, etc from your research guys, that would be great. I'm a big fan of biomechanics and understand it to some degree. True, putting a larger holder/steel on a skate can make a difference but what baffles me is that while the power runner is longer, my measurements of the steel shows the extra length on the very end of the heel, not at the front, and the holders seem to be mounted in the same location as the regular LS holders. So with a few extra mm on the heel area, I don't see stride rate being a factor. And yes, I am anal about test methodology. I use to be an aquisition program manager for radar system built by a large defense contractor. They made a lot of claims about their system, but only independent tests results could prove it. In many cases their performance claims were very overrated. Now I'm not saying NBH is like that, but you can't introduce a new piece of steel into the market and make a claim of more power without some sort of validation.

[DarkStar50 680]

Finally, closure.

"And that's the way it is, September 29, 2006."

from the other network,

"Good night, Chet." "Good night, David."

[hockeymom 2]

If some NHL and speed skaters told NBH that longer blades made them go faster because of bio-mechanics and stride rate, I wouldn't say that in itself s conclusive unless some controlled tests on the new Power blades were done to back it up.....

....True, putting a larger holder/steel on a skate can make a difference but what baffles me is that while the power runner is longer, my measurements of the steel shows the extra length on the very end of the heel, not at the front, and the holders seem to be mounted in the same location as the regular LS holders.

O-Zone did not say that "some speed skaters told him". The huge volume of research that has gone into speed skating over the last few years' has completely revolutionized the speed skate. There is a ton of that research readily available (google it), and it certainly has helped me become more knowledgeable.

Further, as with any company, the FIRST place you begin any process is with a thorough review of related research. (published secondary research). Studying that research helps define your problems and possibilities and THEN you move forward with your own testing. If you reread O-Zone's post you will see he was describing this initial phase of the research process.

Speed skates are longer at both the front and the back... the difference between speed skating and hockey is, at some point in every game, the hockey player has to turn quickly. I think from a common-sense perspective that is one reason why the hockey skate isn't as long at the front. I suspect another reason is bio-mechanics of the explosive stride.

[BGM 0]

If you have two runners, one longer and one shorter, but with the same profile, wouldn't both runners have the same amount of steel in contact with the ice ? And if so, wouldn't there be no difference in performance ? I really am trying to understand how the longer steel on the LS2 could result in better performance.

Runner length is just like snow skis. Longer skis have more surface contact which is better for straight ahead speed (downhill skis) and shorter skis are better for maneuverability (slalom skis).

As far as skate weight, I went from 7000s to XXs to XXXs in the past 6 years. If you pick up a 7000 now after skating in XXXs they will feel heavy. Just like in 10 years the XXXs will feel heavy I'm sure. There is something to be said about weight--like in running shoes, b-ball shoes, etc. Players that are generally skilled players in the speed positions (point guard, wide receiver) always wear the lightest shoe. I think in hockey you can still get away with using a slightly heavier skate though in some cases the lighter skate can help in your foot speed.

[Eazy_b97 1]

If you have two runners, one longer and one shorter, but with the same profile, wouldn't both runners have the same amount of steel in contact with the ice ? And if so, wouldn't there be no difference in performance ? I really am trying to understand how the longer steel on the LS2 could result in better performance.

Runner length is just like snow skis. Longer skis have more surface contact which is better for straight ahead speed (downhill skis) and shorter skis are better for maneuverability (slalom skis).

If they have the same profile/radius the amount on the ice will be the same regardless of total length of the blade.

[BGM 0]

If they have the same profile/radius the amount on the ice will be the same regardless of total length of the blade.

Yes, in theory, if you change them to be the same. I was just using skis and contact zone as a comparison.

[Ivan 1]

Recently, it seems like most companies want to makes skates lighter and lighter and with the more flash possible on their skates. The thing is I've never seen someone skating better because they bought lighter skates. What I want is not the lightest skates, what I want is the best quality, the best comfort, the skates that respond the best to my feet. I'm also tired of those flashy colors on skates. For me, only black and white can fit on skates, not blue, grey etc...I like the traditionnal colors and for having many friends in hockey, I'm not the only one.

I was talking to a skates expert last week(the guy works on his own so he is not addict for one company more than an other) and he told me that too light skates might be the cause of certain recent injuries. He also told me that lighter skates doesn't make players faster. Sure there is limit to heavy like he said but he said that a certain amount of weight in skates help you to skate with momentum. At first, I did not understand but when you think to that it's logical. It's the physics law. As example, do some arm circles then after that take a 5 pounds objects and do others arm cicles with it, it will be easier to do with the 5 pounds and you will have more momentum in you circles. He said it's the same thing with skating. In his mind, he said that the Graf is this still the best skate on the market even though they keep their skates traditionnal.

In concusion, I'm tried of company that say they the best skate on the market because their skates is 50 grams lighter than an other. It's completely stupid. Likmany things nowadays, many skates company try to sell illusion to the hockey world, false illusion and I'm tired of it. So if you want to be a better skater, go to public skating and practice.

Hmmm. I actually skate faster and more explosive after having swithched from Bauer Supreme 7000 to CC Vector 10. The team mates have noticed that too.

[DarkStar50 680]

The 7000 is a model from 2000! Of course your Vector 10.0 would be lighter than a skate designed 6 years ago. The explosiveness is another story! Its nice to have teammates who like you. :lol:

[jimmy 194]

If some NHL and speed skaters told NBH that longer blades made them go faster because of bio-mechanics and stride rate,  I wouldn't say that in itself s conclusive unless some controlled tests on the new Power blades were done to back it up.....

....True, putting a larger holder/steel on a skate can make a difference but what baffles me is that while the power runner is longer, my measurements of the steel shows the extra length on the very end of the heel, not at the front, and the holders seem to be mounted in the same location as the regular LS holders. 

O-Zone did not say that "some speed skaters told him". The huge volume of research that has gone into speed skating over the last few years' has completely revolutionized the speed skate. There is a ton of that research readily available (google it), and it certainly has helped me become more knowledgeable.

Further, as with any company, the FIRST place you begin any process is with a thorough review of related research. (published secondary research). Studying that research helps define your problems and possibilities and THEN you move forward with your own testing. If you reread O-Zone's post you will see he was describing this initial phase of the research process.

Speed skates are longer at both the front and the back... the difference between speed skating and hockey is, at some point in every game, the hockey player has to turn quickly. I think from a common-sense perspective that is one reason why the hockey skate isn't as long at the front. I suspect another reason is bio-mechanics of the explosive stride.

Take a LS power steel and place it under a LS2 steel and overlap the two blades. Look at the "extra" length which is all at the rear and tell me where more speed is coming from. No part of that extra steel is contacting the ice. The shape of that steel has nothing to do with speedskates. So comparing them to research done on speed skates can be thrown out the window. Next?

[hockeymom 2]

Perhaps if you were more than a fan of biomechanics...

Look Jimmy, I realize there is nothing that anyone can say or do that will move your entrenched position here.

So let's try a different tack on it... Where is the conclusive proof that your sharpenings are superior. I would like to know what methodology you use.

[O-zone 0]

....True, putting a larger holder/steel on a skate can make a difference but what baffles me is that while the power runner is longer, my measurements of the steel shows the extra length on the very end of the heel, not at the front, and the holders seem to be mounted in the same location as the regular LS holders. 

Take a LS power steel and place it under a LS2 steel and overlap the two blades. Look at the "extra" length which is all at the rear and tell me where more speed is coming from. No part of that extra steel is contacting the ice. The shape of that steel has nothing to do with speedskates. So comparing them to research done on speed skates can be thrown out the window. Next?

Since I know a lot of MSH members are interested in actual fact, I asked one of our skate engineers to put together a drawing with a proper comparison of the LS Power and the LS 2.

He took the CAD models for each and superimposed the side views at the same scale and you can see the result below (if I can figure out how to use the image link properly). The red wireframe is the LS Power, the green one is the LS 2.

The diagram shows that the approximately 7 mm of additional length of the LS Power (for a size 8 skate holder) is composed of 1.1 mm at the rear and 5.8 mm at the front.

I am not sure how one could arrive at the conclusion that all the differential length of the LS Power is at the rear. Unless in overlapping the two runners, you aligned them at the hook. This would be incorrect as the hook, and the plastic recess it fits into, are further forward in the LS Power than in the LS 2, as I hope can be seen from the diagram. But it should also make sense in considering that the material of the LS 2 shrinks more than the material of the LS Power. The further you are away from the injection point, the greater the dimensional difference due to differential shrink factors.

And one more time, the idea did not come from speed skating, the idea of being able to generate more speed from a longer hockey blade originated with hockey players. The speed skating research only came into play when we later looked into it and tried to first establish a basis for why this would be true: the simple equation equating skating velocity to the product of stride rate and stride length. A longer runner can enable a skater to increase his stride length.

kc