Therma Blade

[Law Goalie 147]

That's just the problem.

They don't appear to have done much homework. The science is dubious at best. The *only* claim they or anyone else can seriously make is the ultimately subjective 'it feels better' -- the mantra of Q-Ray bracelets, Goji juice, and everything else that suggests benefits that cannot actually be claimed.

And even on the 'feels better' claim, there is no way to tell that the heating of the blade (there central and most expensive feature) has anything to do with the result. As others have noted, the steel is wider: that will create substantial difference in 'feel' and performance. I know: I'm one of a few goalies who has used different widths of runner on the same skate at the same hollow and profile. The steel is also, in and of itself, very high quality: that makes a difference, too, especially in gliding. The holder's flexibility or overall design may be good for some people, much the way some still prefer ICM's to Tuuk's.

Bottom line: until some does a double-blind test with heated and unheated versions of at least a few major holders and blades, TB's included, we will have no way of knowing whether the preference is for the heating technology or the holder/blade. Hypothetically, I'd put my money on the heating technology making zero influence.

[GoHawks 0]

I'm with puck it and mrusse here, the testing methods were definitely flawed. mrusse is right on the money with the 'butt dyno' explanation. Sure, the theory makes total sense, but to what extent will the theory hold? You can't count on a person to say 'hey, my glide is sooo much better with these on!', especially when they already know about the product. The product may increase your glide significantly, but there's also a good chance the product makes a very small change in the glide. There is definitely a placebo effect. Not discouraging the people who have tried them, they may work, they may not, but without real scientific testing (only ONE variable at a time...) people shouldn't believe what the company is touting as revolutionary or whatever. The company's hype is far outweighing the scientific evidence that these things actually work, and a lot of people are buying it.

[mrusse01 0]

Bottom line: until some does a double-blind test...

I agree 100%...but I'm not holding my breath.

[bbruins8 0]

Sorry dude, no offense but I don't buy it. Subject-expectancy effect (placebo effect in medicine) - you expect a certain result and so you unconsciously manipulate your findings to conform with expectations. It's not a knock on your personality or your skating ability or anything, and I know there's nothing you can do but report your findings as best you can, but I still remain skeptical based on some of the theory provided earlier in this thread as well as a stunning lack of solid evidence coming forth from thermablade themselves.

Coming from the car world it's the same thing with what we call a 'butt test'...you install a new product on your car and can 'feel' it pulling harding, going faster, etc...but when you throw it on a dyno or take it to the track there is no improvement.

The problem in the car world (and the hockey world, and just about everywhere else) is that the majority of people only really care about the 'butt dyno', so companies don't feel the need to actually back up any of their claims with scientific results. As long as it sounds like a pretty good idea, people will buy into it with little or no evidence.

This is how I see it but I could never find the words. A+ post.

[yorkualum 0]

Everyone seems to be trying to poke holes in the science of Thermablade. Name the new technology in any sport and you can find holes in the theories behind its increased benefits (composite sticks for example).

Some people are going to notice a benefit and some aren't. You can't tell me that every single player who feels some sort of benefit from a heated blade is only doing so because they know that its on their feet-- and that they are supposed to feel something beneficial. But simply disregarding a new product because it's too expensive or it doesn't fit your scientific ideal is awfully short sighted.

[GoHawks 0]

It's not about the product not fitting scientific ideals.

"Thermablade skate blades are heated to significantly reduce the friction of the blade gliding on the ice. You get a quicker start and skate faster..."

"With Thermablade, starting resistance is reduced up to 75% and gliding resistance is cut by up to 55%. There's also a significant decrease in energy-robbing vibration"

Somewhere in this thread someone was talking about how the testing to get those numbers was something like putting a weight on a skate, and dragging it from a stop to a constant speed. This does not translate to hockey, the experiment is fundamentally flawed. A better idea would be to get it up to speed and see how fast the skate loses speed, and seeing if it would glide further than a normal skate. The testing didn't seem very thorough. Anyway, to get to my point, those quotes are from the Thermablade website. To make statements like that, you should get reliable data from a test that remotely mimics something seen in hockey (i.e. gliding). It says right on the website you'll skate faster, but that seems contradictory to what a lot of people are saying. I'm saying that if you're going to make a claim, you should back it up with SOLID evidence, not some half-assed 'testing'

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

Between 'puck it' and 'mrusse', we have a couple of NASA scientists in the thread. Can you guys seriously get real?

Well, almost true. I've done some work with satellites maintained by NASA. Does that count?

I'm quite qualified to comment on flawed experimental theory and lack of backing data. Both are my biggest beef.

but scientifically, the theory makes total sense. Don't tell me that a heated blade doesn't cut thru the layer of water above the ice surface..... and since it does, don't tell me that it doesn't make for a smoother skate with less friction.

I've said repeatedly that conceptually they have a great idea. However, they continually provide irrelevant data, conclusions that would be impossible to deduce from their experiments, and they omit critical results. They do this because they cant prove significance and effectiveness. For example, the gravitational force at any point on the surface of earth is stronger than it is at, say, 1 kilometer above that point. Conceptually that is flawless. However, there is no significance because the difference in the gravitational force differs by something like 10^-10 Newtons. that's 2.2 x10^-11 pounds, or in a decimal form, 0.000000000022 pounds. Which there is no practical application of that result. I maintain that the impact that the heated blades makes versus an identical non-heated bears no significance, but not quite as severe as my example i just provided.

[Chadd 916]

Everyone seems to be trying to poke holes in the science of Thermablade. Name the new technology in any sport and you can find holes in the theories behind its increased benefits (composite sticks for example).

Some people are going to notice a benefit and some aren't. You can't tell me that every single player who feels some sort of benefit from a heated blade is only doing so because they know that its on their feet-- and that they are supposed to feel something beneficial. But simply disregarding a new product because it's too expensive or it doesn't fit your scientific ideal is awfully short sighted.

I see that you've been with us almost a month now as a member, I would think you would have realized that our members generally fall into one of three categories on any given product.

1. Those who believe in any and all claims made by sales reps, advertisements and anyone they've ever met.

2. Those who will never believe in any claim ever made by a sales rep, advertisement or anyone they've ever met.

3. Those who only believe what they have experienced on their own or by those whom they trust.

[Law Goalie 147]

Everyone seems to be trying to poke holes in the science of Thermablade. Name the new technology in any sport and you can find holes in the theories behind its increased benefits (composite sticks for example).

Some people are going to notice a benefit and some aren't. You can't tell me that every single player who feels some sort of benefit from a heated blade is only doing so because they know that its on their feet-- and that they are supposed to feel something beneficial. But simply disregarding a new product because it's too expensive or it doesn't fit your scientific ideal is awfully short sighted.

I would put it quite another way. There is no science of Thermablade. There are easily spotted holes in Thermabalde's marketing material. No one is 'poking' -- that implies some sort of destructive activity on the part of people who are merely observers.

Your argument about perceived benefits is entirely specious, as I and others have noted.

I think the price is excessive. Having said that, it would not be even close to the most expensive piece of equipment I have purchased. Themablades may very well be the best holder/blade combination on the market. After all, lots of people loved the old Perfectas, and I know well the practical benefits of changing the width of the blade. However, I see little reason to spend upwards of four hundred dollars on what amount to slightly above-average, wider than normal steel, and pretty good but generally unremarkable holders.

The product itself meets no scientific ideal; nor should it. Highly marketable claims about its abilities, however, should not go unconsidered.

[VakarLajos 5]

Everyone seems to be trying to poke holes in the science of Thermablade. Name the new technology in any sport and you can find holes in the theories behind its increased benefits (composite sticks for example).

Some people are going to notice a benefit and some aren't. You can't tell me that every single player who feels some sort of benefit from a heated blade is only doing so because they know that its on their feet-- and that they are supposed to feel something beneficial. But simply disregarding a new product because it's too expensive or it doesn't fit your scientific ideal is awfully short sighted.

I would put it quite another way. There is no science of Thermablade. There are easily spotted holes in Thermabalde's marketing material. No one is 'poking' -- that implies some sort of destructive activity on the part of people who are merely observers.

Your argument about perceived benefits is entirely specious, as I and others have noted.

I think the price is excessive. Having said that, it would not be even close to the most expensive piece of equipment I have purchased. Themablades may very well be the best holder/blade combination on the market. After all, lots of people loved the old Perfectas, and I know well the practical benefits of changing the width of the blade. However, I see little reason to spend upwards of four hundred dollars on what amount to slightly above-average, wider than normal steel, and pretty good but generally unremarkable holders.

The product itself meets no scientific ideal; nor should it. Highly marketable claims about its abilities, however, should not go unconsidered.

Wouldn't the concept of creating a layer of water between the skate and the ice by heating the metal be meeting a scientific ideal? I thought that was the whole point.

I agree though. For myself, hundreds of dollars is way too much for steel/holder combo. For the player who goes through $250 sticks every two days it might be a different story. The fraction of a second I gain from the benefits of the blade are lost once I touch the puck, so it's pretty pointless.

[Law Goalie 147]

Sorry. I may have been semantically sloppy. What I meant to say was, simply, that any product or invention is what it is. It will perform as such, no matter what anyone says about it, or how many "New! Improved!" stickers are on its packaging. Whether it's Thermablades, T'blades, or an antibacterial toothpaste, the advertised idea of the product and the product itself are never the same thing.

And yes, in this case, I think the chief purported advantage is as dubious as doping Colgate with tricoslan.

[ktang 34]

Everyone seems to be trying to poke holes in the science of Thermablade. Name the new technology in any sport and you can find holes in the theories behind its increased benefits (composite sticks for example).

Some people are going to notice a benefit and some aren't. You can't tell me that every single player who feels some sort of benefit from a heated blade is only doing so because they know that its on their feet-- and that they are supposed to feel something beneficial. But simply disregarding a new product because it's too expensive or it doesn't fit your scientific ideal is awfully short sighted.

I see that you've been with us almost a month now as a member, I would think you would have realized that our members generally fall into one of three categories on any given product.

1. Those who believe in any and all claims made by sales reps, advertisements and anyone they've ever met.

2. Those who will never believe in any claim ever made by a sales rep, advertisement or anyone they've ever met.

3. Those who only believe what they have experienced on their own or by those whom they trust.

I guess that I'm a #4.

Some more ideas for the discussion:

Proper application of the correct type of wax to match snow conditions improve cross-country skiing performance.

Heated runners are not allowed in bobsled, skeleton, and long track speed skating competitions because they (and lubricated runners) give an advantage in these events. There was enough of a discernible advantage for these aids to be banned.

So, there is the potential for heated runners to give a discernible advantage for hockey skaters too.

The ThermaBlade literature is poorly written, from a technical point of view, which is why certain people may be dismissing its claims.

However, it is still possible for the blades to give a disceribly better glide etc. despite the explanations, testing, and comparisons being technically incorrect.

[Chadd 916]

I guess that I'm a #4.

Some more ideas for the discussion:

Proper application of the correct type of wax to match snow conditions improve cross-country skiing performance.

Heated runners are not allowed in bobsled, skeleton, and long track speed skating competitions because they (and lubricated runners) give an advantage in these events. There was enough of a discernible advantage for these aids to be banned.

So, there is the potential for heated runners to give a discernible advantage for hockey skaters too.

The ThermaBlade literature is poorly written, from a technical point of view, which is why certain people may be dismissing its claims.

However, it is still possible for the blades to give a disceribly better glide etc. despite the explanations, testing, and comparisons being technically incorrect.

I've seen the bobsled thing a couple times now, so let's analyze this briefly.

I've never seen an actual measurement of how much a heated runner would improve a sled's time but, bobsled winners and loser are generally determined by tenths or hundreds of seconds over a kilometer+ length course.

Bobsled runners do turn for steering but once placed on the track the runners simply glide.

Skeleton, see above.

Speed skating.

Again not similar to ice hockey. They do stride in both speed skating and ice hockey but that's about the only similarity. Speed skating strides are much longer and more fluid after the start. No hard stops and no hard changes of direction.

That said, thermablades may offer some benefit. I tend to distrust anything "revolutionary" especially when it has been hanging around the fringes for years with no interest from any major player in the industry.

[DarkStar50 679]

Yet look how long it took T-Flex blades and shafts to morph into OPSs! Once they did and players bought into the "technology" what happened? OPS killed the wood stick market. My point is not Thermablades will end Tuuk LS but that a product on the fringe can take time before it is accepted.

[JR Boucicaut 3805]

Yet look how long it took T-Flex blades and shafts to morph into OPSs! Once they did and players bought into the "technology" what happened? OPS killed the wood stick market. My point is not Thermablades will end Tuuk LS but that a product on the fringe can take time before it is accepted.

It was because it was affordable.

Busch had crazy claims with the Carbone and the Balance and yet, nobody bought into it.

Reason being - everyone was using wood.

People switched over to shafts and blades by the time SyNergy hit the market. It was essentially a no-brainer.

[DarkStar50 679]

If it was essentially a no-brainer, why do I continue to hear from the beer leaguers, "No way I'm paying $100 for a OPS!" They piss and moan about a $100 OPS. Shafts and blades were not even 75% of the stick market 9 years ago when the first Synergys started to hit the market. Wood stick users across all age groups still dominated sales. I have the sales histories to prove it from the two shops I have worked in through this period. I had been at one shop from 78 to 01 and just moved to the next job/shop in February 01. Wood sticks far outsold shaft/blades for a long time through this period. It is only within the last two years that shafts and replacement blades have taken a major hit in sell-through. Woodys are now RIP.

JR, we are probably getting our signals crossed but I stand by my original point that in the hockey market place, change is not always accepted as quick as some may think with a new technology that is better. Again, this is not to say Thermablades are better. I am specifically talking about technology and change. The original $150 Synergy was considered way too expensive. Once players who knew how to shoot, and that is very important in the success of a new technology, could see and feel the benefit of the OPS, then wood was doomed. If someone like myself can shoot harder with a OPS than I could 20 years ago with a woody, then there is something that OPS is doing for me that the woody can't. I am using proper form in shooting to get that benefit from the OPS. I am hinting at something about Thermablades with this statement that only the guys on the board who have used them will understand. I will leave it at that about Thermablades. I have used them but not enough to comment on them.

[VakarLajos 5]

If it was essentially a no-brainer, why do I continue to hear from the beer leaguers, "No way I'm paying $100 for a OPS!" They piss and moan about a $100 OPS. Shafts and blades were not even 75% of the stick market 9 years ago when the first Synergys started to hit the market. Wood stick users across all age groups still dominated sales. I have the sales histories to prove it from the two shops I have worked in through this period. I had been at one shop from 78 to 01 and just moved to the next job/shop in February 01. Wood sticks far outsold shaft/blades for a long time through this period. It is only within the last two years that shafts and replacement blades have taken a major hit in sell-through. Woodys are now RIP.

JR, we are probably getting our signals crossed but I stand by my original point that in the hockey market place, change is not always accepted as quick as some may think with a new technology that is better. Again, this is not to say Thermablades are better. I am specifically talking about technology and change. The original $150 Synergy was considered way too expensive. Once players who knew how to shoot, and that is very important in the success of a new technology, could see and feel the benefit of the OPS, then wood was doomed. If someone like myself can shoot harder with a OPS than I could 20 years ago with a woody, then there is something that OPS is doing for me that the woody can't. I am using proper form in shooting to get that benefit from the OPS. I am hinting at something about Thermablades with this statement that only the guys on the board who have used them will understand. I will leave it at that about Thermablades. I have used them but not enough to comment on them.

I don't see Thermablades being commonplace because of the rarity in changing holders. Most people will just keep going with what is on the skate from the manufacturer. People can try other people's sticks and sample them a lot easier than trying out another holder/runner.

Everybody here who works in a LHS knows that there are many players aren't even aware that holder and runners are replaceable. I don't see a huge number of people changing over anytime soon for marginal advantages.

[JR Boucicaut 3805]

If it was essentially a no-brainer, why do I continue to hear from the beer leaguers, "No way I'm paying $100 for a OPS!" They piss and moan about a $100 OPS. Shafts and blades were not even 75% of the stick market 9 years ago when the first Synergys started to hit the market. Wood stick users across all age groups still dominated sales. I have the sales histories to prove it from the two shops I have worked in through this period. I had been at one shop from 78 to 01 and just moved to the next job/shop in February 01. Wood sticks far outsold shaft/blades for a long time through this period. It is only within the last two years that shafts and replacement blades have taken a major hit in sell-through. Woodys are now RIP.

JR, we are probably getting our signals crossed but I stand by my original point that in the hockey market place, change is not always accepted as quick as some may think with a new technology that is better. Again, this is not to say Thermablades are better. I am specifically talking about technology and change. The original $150 Synergy was considered way too expensive. Once players who knew how to shoot, and that is very important in the success of a new technology, could see and feel the benefit of the OPS, then wood was doomed. If someone like myself can shoot harder with a OPS than I could 20 years ago with a woody, then there is something that OPS is doing for me that the woody can't. I am using proper form in shooting to get that benefit from the OPS. I am hinting at something about Thermablades with this statement that only the guys on the board who have used them will understand. I will leave it at that about Thermablades. I have used them but not enough to comment on them.

But these aren't marketed to the beer leaguer. Neither were OPS until now, where you can buy a $50 OPS.

I understand what you are saying, but the point that I am trying to make is that there was a buffer between wood and OPS. When Busch came out with their stick, they were out there by themselves, as is TB.

[DarkStar50 679]

Thanks for clarifying your point.

What OPS in SR is $50? Just curious.

[JR Boucicaut 3805]

Thanks for clarifying your point.

What OPS in SR is $50? Just curious.

TPS R1.

Selling them by the assload to beer leaguers.

Easton's SC2 will be around $60.

[DarkStar50 679]

Damn, my beer leaguers are cheap!

Thanks!!

[Chadd 916]

Put the NBH logo on thermablades and sales double.

[Steve123 0]

Put the NBH logo on thermablades and sales double.

Do you really think they would if they kept them at $400?

[Chadd 916]

Put the NBH logo on thermablades and sales double.

Do you really think they would if they kept them at $400?

I don't know what the cost per unit is.

[Hipster 5]

Here's an experiment for you. next time you get your blades sharpened, dip a cloth in Rain-x and slosh it around on your blades. Then Go skate. You will have absolutely zero proof that its reduced friction....but you'll know.

The doubters are absolutely within their rights to say they will not buy a product without scientific proof of its benefits.

And people have to be honest with themselves about what's really at the heart of their like or dislike of a new product. There are a lot of Old farts out there with $400 drivers sitting in their garage because the $500 driver ran an add about 5% more accuracy and 15% less spin, etc. etc.

If they say there's a huge difference...well it may be more marketing B.S. and post sale rationalization. Happens all the time. It doesn't matter bercause the guy is unreliable whether he loves it or hates it.

On the other hand, a tour pro or top amateur can hit a driver with no markings and tell you the loft, shaft flex, bulge, roll and face angle.

When it comes to these Thermablades, there are too many variables to consider in order to give everyone an answer that is true for them personally. Yep, that's right, I said it. Different people have different skating styles and play different positions and need different benefits from their gear.

A blade that may make no difference whatsoever to a rock solid stay at home defensemen may make a significant difference to a forward who stakes his game on constant motion and backchecking.

The naysayers are all of one voice, "Without proof, don't tell me they work. And even if they do, don't tell me they are worth $400."

My question to them is, "With all the potential variables amongst skaters and ice conditions, ages and baselines, why would a test result or even a series of various test results hold your magic proof?" How in God's name is a teeny weeny company supposed to assuage every wanna be nobel winner without a Government grant for huge research dollars?

Of course the company is going to say they work for everyone. I know their angle is to make money and become viable. Then there will be people who say they can't work for anyone, to which I say, based on what? Your interpretation of the companies little test results? Ha! What's that got to do with me and my usage? With all due respect, I trust my skating more than your scientific mind to tell me what's significant and what's not. Show me some credible data that refutes my personal experience, and maybe I'd second guess my anecdotal hearsay.

Then there will be those who say they tried them themselves and felt no difference, so its all hype, to which I say "What proof do you have that you've got the experience and ability to discern a difference or lack thereof.

If a person feels qualified to verify the marketing claims on a non scientific basis, and they can afford to be wrong, then who cares? Let em be a blithering idiot, if that's what you think it makes them.

One man's Placebo effect is another man's lack of confidence in their own ability to make the call. I'm not interested in whether they work for anyone else or under what conditions. I only care about me, and while scientific proof would be wonderful, I don't see how its feasible to get meaningful proof unless I record all the data myself. Howzabout you provide proof that these blades don't work for anyone under any circumstances?

I understand how a guy would say, "Just because you tried them and said they worked for you doesn't mean anything."

So I'm certain those guys can understand where a person who has used them might say, "Hey, you say they don't work, but you've never tried them, so what do you know?" I'll even go that one better and say, "Even if you have tried them extensively, why should I take you're word for it if you say they don't work? You may be 5'9", 295lbs with a stride like a bag of hammers. How do I know you're thumbs down is simply a lack of ability on your part?" Fair question? I think so.

Anyone with the $400 to burn is a big enough boy or girl to deal with their own motivations. If you need proof, good luck getting just the right data for you. That's not my problem.