Blackstone Flat-Bottom V Thread

[Mimizk 114]

I can't realize how A-Trap spinners are used or the numbers what mean...

For example, how about 52/17/100?

And it comes with a set of 2 spinners though, we have to sharpen twice? or dressing twice and once sharpen?

[Mimizk 114]

Today I've received my 3 FBV spinners.





Then I noticed that Blackstone announce as here.



For example, from ROH 1-3/4" to 1-1/4", FBV escalate as same from 70-72-75-80-82/50.

But they write 95/50 is shallower feeling than 85/50.

Or also 92/50 or is deeper feeling than 95/50.

Is there anyone who can explain this?

[Davetronz 109]

Not sure if this is what you're looking for...

With respect to FBV,

First Number: The width “d”
of the flat part of the blade, in
thousandths, after the
sharpening.

Second Number: The height
“h” between the edges of the
blade and the flat area of the
blade (in 10 millionths).

[Mimizk 114]

Thank you Dave,

I make this post to record correct information.

Because I saw certainly number of information on the internet yesterday when I was looking for.

"10 millionths", "10 thousandths", "thousandths"... etc

For example in case of 90/50,

90 mean 0.090 inch of bottom width (picture's d).

50 mean 0.0050 inch of bottom depth (picture's h).

And there is only a special number, "xx/1" mean as same as "xx/100", so it mean 0.0100 inch of bottom depth.

[Mimizk 114]

I've not been able to receive answer from Blackstone and Mark...

The spinners which have "xx/50" bottom height escalate as 70, 72, 75, 80, 82, 90, 95, 85, 88, 92, 98, 100 in this chart.

It's so wonder...

Their heights are the same "50". So its bottom widths must mean each spinner's edge angles directly.

If this thinking is not wrong, what any other factor changed the feeling?

Of course I can't say it as I've experienced though, I can't believe that Blackstone's announce.

They are writing 85/50 is deeper feeling than 95/50.

Is there anyone who have similar feeling as Blackstone said?

[AfftonDad 88]

I've not been able to receive answer from Blackstone and Mark...

The spinners which have "xx/50" bottom height escalate as 70, 72, 75, 80, 82, 90, 95, 85, 88, 92, 98, 100 in this chart.

It's so wonder...

Their heights are the same "50". So its bottom widths must mean each spinner's edge angles directly.

If this thinking is not wrong, what any other factor changed the feeling?

Of course I can't say it as I've experienced though, I can't believe that Blackstone's announce.

They are writing 85/50 is deeper feeling than 95/50.

Is there anyone who have similar feeling as Blackstone said?

I would agree with your assessment. I made this chart for my own use few years ago based on the spinners that were available at that time and the geometric info that was included in their document that was on the old site. It appears to me that the number for 85/50 in their chart above is way out of line of what would be expected. I have both 85/50 and 95/50 spinners and have used them both and 85/50 definitely has less bite than 95/50.

As I have said on this forum several times in the past, in my opinion, I think you (and everyone) would do themselves a favor to pick a single edge depth as a ("coarse adjustment") and hold that constant and then vary the flat width ("fine adjustment") to get to the amount of bite that they want (bigger number = more bite, lesser number = less bite). To be honest though... I have found myself in the situation where there wasn't enough fine adjustment in the steps of "5" on the width and I have had to switch from 75 to 50 depth to get there. I sometimes wish that there were only one edge depth (say 75) and that the flat widths came in steps of 1 or 2 (relative to the 5 that is currently typical).

Edited January 9, 2015 by AfftonDad

[AfftonDad 88]

Looking more closely at the numbers for the available spinners in your post (and cross checking against Blackstone's site) it becomes apparent that they do have "in between" width values now, at least in full size spinners. Unfortunately, I use an x-series portable and they don't have those "in-between" options. It looks like in full size spinners they have 82, 85, 88, etc. This of course gives a smaller step from 80 to 82 and 88 to 90 (2) than from 82 to 85 and from 85 to 88 (3). They probably ought to just bite the bullet and go something like 80,82,84,86,88,90,92,94,96,98,100 and phase out 85, 95, etc. Also, it would be nice if they would offer the same sizes in mini spinners that they do in full size spinners.

[Davetronz 109]

TMSS - Too many spinners syndrome.

[AfftonDad 88]

TMSS - Too many spinners syndrome.

I could be completely happy with only the 75 edge depth as long as there was a slightly finer resolution in the width steps. The net effect would actually result in fewer spinners overall.

[jimmy 194]

Take everything Blackstone says with a grain of salt. Too many spinners with very little difference between them. I did blind tests and most couldn't tell any difference. When I first got my machine years ago, they had two spinners, one they said covered 3/8-1/2", and the other 1/2 to 5/8. Marketing to sell more spinners is amazing.

[lpgbackups 17]

i see an enormous difference between 90/75 and 95/75

[mnpucker 33]

the guys I sharpen for and myself use 2 FBV's. All over 6', all nearing 200lbs. They like 100-50 for softer ice conditions, specifically spring summer early fall when there is more humidity. This time of year they are 100-75. Not gonna say that is what it should be for everyone, just what they/I landed on.

I can actually say that the 100-75 eliminates that "tail slide" feeling some mention after migrating to FBV. I thought 95-75 felt "sharper/sticky" than 100-75 though.

[AfftonDad 88]

I was at 95-75 and 100-50 on my U+CLs. When I switched to Makos that was "too sharp" and I went to 90-75 on them. The shallowest spinner I had was 90-50 and I had never even tried it because 90-75 was almost too shallow for me. When I got my VH's with Mako holders and runners and put the same 90-75 on them they were WAAAAYYY "too sharp".. I tried 90-50, still too sharp. Ended up buying 85-75 and 85-50 spinners to try. 85-50 was a little too shallow and 85-75 is just right. 90-75 is still what feels right when I go back on my Makos. So if just changing the skate boot can make that much of a noticeable difference to me, I don't think the difference is imagined.

I thought 95-75 felt "sharper/sticky" than 100-75 though.

Maybe a worn out spinner or a bad sharpening???... because that shouldn't be possible unless something was wrong. EDIT: Sorry... I just (re)read that you do you own sharpening... I didn't mean to suggest that you aren't good at it. Perhaps the spinner was made out of spec.

Edited January 9, 2015 by AfftonDad

[Mimizk 114]

I would agree with your assessment. I made this chart for my own use few years ago based on the spinners that were available at that time and the geometric info that was included in their document that was on the old site. It appears to me that the number for 85/50 in their chart above is way out of line of what would be expected. I have both 85/50 and 95/50 spinners and have used them both and 85/50 definitely has less bite than 95/50.

As I have said on this forum several times in the past, in my opinion, I think you (and everyone) would do themselves a favor to pick a single edge depth as a ("coarse adjustment") and hold that constant and then vary the flat width ("fine adjustment") to get to the amount of bite that they want (bigger number = more bite, lesser number = less bite). To be honest though... I have found myself in the situation where there wasn't enough fine adjustment in the steps of "5" on the width and I have had to switch from 75 to 50 depth to get there. I sometimes wish that there were only one edge depth (say 75) and that the flat widths came in steps of 1 or 2 (relative to the 5 that is currently typical).

Yeah I had read all of this thread so of course include your post and chart.

It was very useful to understand about FBV, thank you.

I measured my 3 spinners with vernier calipers and after calculated its edge angle.

I could get almost same number as your chart.

But I still wonder why Mark doesn't send me reply and change the chart if my thinking is correct.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Mimizk

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Is A-Trap for goalies as good as it sounds?

[Mimizk 114]

Is A-Trap for goalies as good as it sounds?

I'm interested in that too.

When I bought my spinners, I called my goalie friends to buy A-Trap spinners.

But anyone didn't.

52/17/100 mean 0.052" of bottom width(outside) / 0.0017" of bottom height / 0.1" of bottom width(inside)?

Then other story,

I measured my 3 spinners with vernier calipers though, I felt the precision is so roughly.

I have 90/50, 100/50 and 95/75.

But 100/50 have smaller bottom diameter than 95/75.

100/50 was 30.9mm, 95/75 was 31.0mm and 90/50 was 31.3mm.

[AfftonDad 88]

I often wondered about how tight the tolerances are on the spinners. I doubt that a Vernier caliper is the right tool to measure them though.

[Davetronz 109]

Is A-Trap for goalies as good as it sounds?

I've never had a problem with 5/8 or 3/4 on my goalie skates. Just more too many spinner syndrome.

I'd honestly worry about how durable the edges would be for a goalie (posts, collisions, pucks, etc). I'd never put FBV or A-trap on my goalie skates.

[jimmy 194]

The A trap works very well. If you are a goalie who likes inside edges with a lot of bite and outside edges with lees bite, then the A-trap is for you. In the past us sharpeners who know how to do it, sharpened the skates purposly out of level so they had higher inside edges. This gave the goalies great inside edges but no outside edge. Great in the crease, lowsy for skating. The A-trap edges however are level so you can also skate well on it, plus added benefit of the flat for more speed if you are a roaming goalie.

[SAK 2]

Our Blackstone Professional Portable with single Spinner dressing is great. The 4" wheels can't match the efficiency and finish, they don't have high enough feet per second. On a side note, I've been using the new Blackstone Goal sled for the last week and it is great. Especially for cowlings with low steel and rec skates that are hard to get onto other sleds. A little on the heavy side, but the performance makes up for it.

So it's on.....I'll put up my finish on my X-02 to your finish on your f series any day. Bring it!

[customskateworks 39]

So it's on.....I'll put up my finish on my X-02 to your finish on your f series any day. Bring it!

It's on as long as you don't put maple syrup in my fine Shine again.

[SAK 2]

It's on as long as you don't put maple syrup in my fine Shine again.

I think you guys were smoking to much of it. Do you want to post the results public or private? Will do it on a 100/50.

[customskateworks 39]

I think you guys were smoking to much of it. Do you want to post the results public or private? Will do it on a 100/50.

Doesn't matter to me. Blue wheels. Loser buys the beer next time.

[angeles 4]

I finally got to sharpening my skates with my X02 after the holidays and much procrastinating, shame on me.

When I did my first pair of skates it did not turn out that well. There were a few minor bumps that I couldn't get rid of, my technique certainly needed improvement. The plus is that it was pretty easy getting level, only took a few passes with a few adjustments in between. I verified this using the Bat Gauge, which can be confusing at times, but overall is a good gauge. I'd like to test out the Butterfly to see the difference.

With my second pair of skates I was able to get a better result, much smoother passes, but still some tiny bumps, just not as much.

The last pair of skates I sharpened was smooth and I was able to get it without any tiny bumps.

Since I got good results with the last pair of skates, I re-did the first 2 skates and they all look great now. I'll be testing the skates tomorrow night.

The best part is that it only takes a few minutes to do, is it really that easy? This machine is awesome, I don't know why I was scared of sharpening my skates and put it off for so long. The X02 is amazing and too damn simple to operate, it pretty much does everything on it's own.

For anyone who has any hesitation on the X02, just get it, you'll be happy you did. I wish I bought it 3 years ago when I first looked into it, it's definitely money well spent.

[Davetronz 109]

It's on as long as you don't put maple syrup in my fine Shine again.

I ended up with a bit of this in my eye (don't ask how) and it didn't burn. Maybe I'll try it on my pancakes, but I doubt they sent a fellow Canadian maple syrup.

The smell is VERY familiar to something else, perhaps automotive, but I still can't pin it exactly.