Radius question

[Cue 0]

Since my skates are small(4.5EE vapors/246 runners), it made me think if the radius should run in relation with the size of the runner.

I currently got my skates profiled to 11ft(previously 9ft, runner was horribly uneven and with a massive toe lean) due to the fact that I was coming from roller and wanted the flatter feel and the sharpener recommended me to try 11ft.

I lean as usual into turns and find it hard to make sharp turns but keep losing my edge and slip as I try to cut into the ice to turn sharper, I was wondering if I should get them profile to 9ft or even less?

[jimmy 194]

Yes, radius is certainly relative to blade length. A 9' radius on a 255 runner is way different than at 9' on a 295 runner. For you, a 11' on that smaller size runner will feel flat and turning will be effected. I think the 9' you had was better, just that it was not done properly with a proper sharpening. If you are a forward, I would start you at 8' and see if you get the performance you need.

[Shark#81 0]

Touring inlines like my K2's have a larger radius, so they are efficient. High speed and lots of glide. But I got used to handling them.

So I went for the same feel on ice, and have an 11 foot, LS2P's. I am over 6' and 185 lbs and running 296's.

An 11 foot is like using longer skis, boards etc. so for a smaller player it's going to add more F<->B stability (good for beginners).

A 9 foot is probably better suited for your assets as a player - quick moves in the corners, fast and shifty.

Anyway... Hollow has a lot to do with how the skates handle, however, and you have not said what you are at there.

Keep in mind that a hefty forward pitch is much less blade on the ice toward the toe, so a 9 foot starts to feel like a 7.

[Cue 0]

This is my first year playing ice hockey, I play forward.

I'm currently skating on 7/16 hollow, I'm 5'3 130lbs and I feel this is a good balance as 3/8 was too much bite and 1/2 I couldn't skate really well, but have gotten much better since the 1/2" mishap so I was thinking of bumping up to 1/2" soon as I hear it is easier to learn how to stop.

Can I make the assumption, let say that an 8ft on my runners would run similar to say a 9' on another skate, I'm sorta leaning towards this theory as I'm shooting for a 9' feel as I'm seeing in previous threads the majority is either a 9' or 11'.

I also inputed my data into that Excel spreadsheet from the General Hockey Discussions and it suggested 7'.

I also got a -.5, not sure if that was a big change or anything from neutral(obviously a big change from the forward pitch), can anyone explain to me if there is a degree equivalent to that.

Keep in mind that a hefty forward pitch is much less blade on the ice toward the toe, so a 9 foot starts to feel like a 7.

I'm trying to get my head around that.

[Cue 0]

Anyone? :(

I play in an adult league and get knock over a lot being that I'm small and lightweight, I'm leaning towards the 9' as 8' might make me unstable?

[JR Boucicaut 3805]

Try it. It can always be changed later. Nothing wrong with trial and error.

[ambro 0]

Yes, radius is certainly relative to blade length. A 9' radius on a 255 runner is way different than at 9' on a 295 runner.

Why would a 9' radius be any different with different sized blades? In a circle with a 9' radius, which is what any length blade is supposed to match up with, the same amount of blade would be touching the ice at any spot on the circle, irrelevant to length of the blade. Someone with a 255 runner will most likely be more agile since they will have smaller feet than one with a 295 runner, but the same amount of blade will be touching the ice.

Radius should certainly not be relative to blade length.

[JR Boucicaut 3805]

Yes, radius is certainly relative to blade length. A 9' radius on a 255 runner is way different than at 9' on a 295 runner.

Why would a 9' radius be any different with different sized blades? In a circle with a 9' radius, which is what any length blade is supposed to match up with, the same amount of blade would be touching the ice at any spot on the circle, irrelevant to length of the blade. Someone with a 255 runner will most likely be more agile since they will have smaller feet than one with a 295 runner, but the same amount of blade will be touching the ice.

Radius should certainly not be relative to blade length.

You just contradicted yourself.

When you radius a pair of skates, you are just working on the working radius. You've got some of it right - the shorter runner will be more "agile" because the "wheelbase" (heel/toe radius) will be shorter.

That would mean that it IS relative to blade length.

[ambro 0]

Yes, radius is certainly relative to blade length. A 9' radius on a 255 runner is way different than at 9' on a 295 runner.

Why would a 9' radius be any different with different sized blades? In a circle with a 9' radius, which is what any length blade is supposed to match up with, the same amount of blade would be touching the ice at any spot on the circle, irrelevant to length of the blade. Someone with a 255 runner will most likely be more agile since they will have smaller feet than one with a 295 runner, but the same amount of blade will be touching the ice.

Radius should certainly not be relative to blade length.

You just contradicted yourself.

When you radius a pair of skates, you are just working on the working radius. You've got some of it right - the shorter runner will be more "agile" because the "wheelbase" (heel/toe radius) will be shorter.

That would mean that it IS relative to blade length.

I did not at all contradict myself. I said radius is irrelevant to blade length, because the same amount of blade is touching the ice no matter what the blade length it. The curve on a 9' radiused blade will be the same with any length blade, therefore radius is irrelevant to blade length.

I never said that agility is irrelevant to blade length, which is what I believe you inferred from my post (correct me if I'm wrong).