Velocities vs. 8ks

[srv2miker 0]

A little background: I bought RBK 8Ks about 6 months ago, and ever since the first ice time I've had problems getting used to them. My biggest problems were:

- Consistently missing the landing gear/sloppy knee lock

- Pads not squaring up in butterfly

- Poor platform for butterfly

The reason I chose 8ks is pretty simple; everything I read told me they were excellent bfly pads, and I'm a bfly goalie, ergo they were the obvious choice. At the time Velos were basically described as more of a hybrid pad, and were good for the flexible, agile, athletic type goalie (which I, at 6'3" and 235lbs, am not). Plus, being from Vancouver, I've had plenty of time to watch Luongo play, and his style seemed pretty achievable for my body type.

But, as I mentioned above, I continued to have problems with the 8ks, and was getting frustrated by them on a nightly basis. Yes, they rotated into position wonderfully, but that doesn't necessarily mean they automatically butterflied (as advertised); I found I needed to really force my feet out to close up the thighrise, and I was consistently very sore in my hips. Furthermore, I found they weren't a great platform for a bfly, if that makes sense. What I mean is, it was a very jarring drop (so much so that it took a concerted effort not to blink during impact), and required a complicated set of muscle memory moves to get all the coverage I wanted.

Recently, I've been looking to upgrade, and I've looking at Battram Nexus pads (which are somewhat similar in nature to PSII/III pads). I've been a little hesitant because of the problems above, and I know if the Nexus' arrived and had the same problems I'd be pissed; I won't have this kind of coin to drop on pads again for quite some time, so I can't afford to mess up.

Out of the blue, I read the recent style analysis of Ilya Bryzgalov in Goalies World magazine, and it started me thinking about Velos again; here was a big, fill-the-net kind of blfy goalie who liked the Velo pads. He doesn't fit the mold of say, a Tukka Rask (also covered in that issue), who seems to be a definite "Vaughn guy". I thought to myself "hey, if Bryz can use Velos in a bfly style, maybe I need to give them a 2nd look".

So, I watched craigslist for a few days, and sure enough a set of pro-stock V2s came up in my size for $400CAN. A little more than I wanted to spend, but I was pretty sure I could recover the cost if I they didn't work out.

From my first carpet-flys I could feel a substantial difference. Gone was the jarring feeling of dropping on my 8ks - the V2s seemed much smoother, and I was able to maintain body position better. The busier leg channel didn't really seem to bother me, and my knee seemed to land only a little too high in the knee stack (more an issue of buying pads slightly too small than anything else).

Tonight, I was able to take them on the ice for the first time. What a difference. From my first drops I felt more in control, and my nagging issues with the 8ks were almost completely alleviated; landed on the landing gear every time, and the pads squared up much better with only my pants causing a little interference. My bfly was exactly how I wanted it - knees together to seal the fivehole, thighrises touching, upperbody nice and high, and it was all seamless from the first drop.

Some unexpected benefits were:

- I found I could utilize a much wider stance (although I went back to my other stance, just out of comfort)

- Finding my edges was much improved, I was definitely popping up much quicker than I ever did in the 8Ks

- Thanks to the flexible nature of the pads, my VH was better (although still a weak point in my game due to my height)

The only things I found that were inferior to the 8K were:

- Pad slides. Definitely could slide further and easier in the RBKs. Could be a technique issue, but I'd bet they'll always be a little less slick than the 8ks.

- Rotation wasn't as effortless as the 8ks. Had a couple of under-rotations, mainly on 1/2 bflys, but I think I'll work these out with more use.

- I found the knee stacks occasionally got in the way while skating, but I think tightening the straps a little will relieve that.

All in all I was very pleased with the Velos, and I really felt that even if the V2s weren't "butterfly specific" pads like the RBks, that I could still play "my" game in them. With a few small adjustments, and little practice, I think these will be almost perfect. Tonight not a single goal was due to my pads, and I've never been able to say that about the RBKs.

I'm still going to order new Battram pads, but I'm going to confidently order the Fury model instead, which is billed to perform just like a Velo.

Sorry for the long thread, but I know I'm not the only one who has gone back and forth between RBKs and Vaughn, and I thought I would throw my $.02 out there. If you have any questions about my journey between the two pads, feel free to ask.

[Netminder32 32]

GREAT informative post!... and thank you for opening this topic up for some serious conversation. This is a problem that a good number of fellow goalies out there have because the difference in these two pads is night and day and even though they represent opposite ends of the goal pad spectrum they are easily the most popular choices.

If anyone else has some good on ice practical experience with both of these pads please chime in...

[Law Goalie 147]

Terrific comparative analysis. It's amazing how two different pairs of what basically amount to 'leg pillows' can be so different in-game.

Lefebvre's RBK/Reebok design is an unforgiving pad. It will really only behave one way, no matter how you strap it, unless you change the shape of the calf or perform major surgery on the interior. If your muscles don't agree with them, they will bend your muscles to their will - not the other way around. You adapt to the pads. They cannot be broken in, at least not in the conventional sense. There are some advantages to this, and other aspects of the design - easier sliding, less resistance in certain movements, greater reliability in some areas - but how these work for any given goalie is largely an known until it's tried.

The Velocity design (with the exception of Pete Smith's newest refinements) is almost exactly the opposite. It breaks in quickly to the user's muscles, but also breaks down from its original shape. Velocities have a much-discussed 'shrink' factor, in which the shred-foam settles down into the pad, allowing the HD plate in the shin to move 1"-1.5" down into the ankle; this has led many devoted Velocity goalies to order their pads up to 2" taller than they would like, subject them to a massive break-in program before any game use. This shred-packed foam goes hand in hand with the 'softer' feel of the Velocity, right down to the knee-stacks (although, interestingly, Bryzgalov's Velos, like Price's have a distinctly RBK-esque single-piece and stiffer knee-block). My understanding is that Vaughn has taken some steps to reduce this shrinkage, including changing the way the gussets are constructed and adding LD sheet-foam in a couple of places, but it seems to persist in every version of the pad that isn't personally done by Smith.

The one thing I would stress is that the Velocity design *loves* a sliding toe-bridge. The flat boot-channel and the way the pad moves with the foot make it an ideal setup. This was originally designed by Smith (and also, by some accounts, independently by Dave Wilcox), but Battram uses it on all of his pads as well.

What this thread does a great job of stressing is that there is no such thing as a 'butterfly pad' or a 'hybrid pad'. Those are marketing terms, and extremely imprecise ones. The original Velocity was marketed as a 'pro-fly' pad (another relatively empty term), aimed specifically at a new generation of goalies who were playing more out of the butterfly than anyone previous. It has since acquired a reputation as a 'hybrid pad' largely because Lefebvre's new designs scooped all the French-Canadian goalies who were said (for inane reasons) to practise the 'Quebec butterfly', and Vaughn found a slightly different niche in the market.

This is not to say that there aren't major differences between these designs. There are, and they've been well-described in this thread.

We could also add the Wilcox/TPS design of a pad based almost entirely on a layering of LD foams (including more exotic forms like Brock foam), but tends to be heavier and thicker than other designs unless some HD plates are used (as in the later Summit and Rx models).

[Oykib 0]

I have been using the Epics the last year and they have great pad slides and rotates great, but someone with your size would destroy that type of pad in little time. I would count those faults as adding life to the pads.

[Law Goalie 147]

Just curious Oyk - where do you feel the Epics would break down from a big body pounding on them? That's one pad I've never had a chance to check out; almost nobody uses them up here.

[Oykib 0]

Just curious Oyk - where do you feel the Epics would break down from a big body pounding on them? That's one pad I've never had a chance to check out; almost nobody uses them up here.

I will have to post some pictures but they aren't built as well as the Velo's. It will break down at the boot because of your skate sliding, and the pads are a little flimsy. The pads and be flexed by hand with little effort and this is great for flexing and keeping your knees comfortable but it will lead to breakdown earlier.

I have already replaced the Robocop along the base of the pads myself.

[Law Goalie 147]

Interesting.

I have noticed that some pads will wear through the boot-bindings faster than others - even when using the same material on the binding. This must have something to do with the underlying construction.

I have also noticed that RBK pads *never* seem to wear on the boot-biding, and that, perhaps because of this design, they have amone the shortest boot-bindings around. My take is that the round medial roll on Lefebvre pads means that the binding along the medial edge (ie. the 'inside' of the boot) never wears, even though it tends to be an area of extremely high wear on other pads, especially on the corner of the boot/toe.

However, my pro-return Supremes have the same roll, but they wear like crazy on the medial boot-binding. This is a fair indication of how fine a design difference we're talking about; these Supremes are basically dead-ringers for the 3rd-generation Koho 580s (aka Preboks).

[Gwyren 0]

Oykib:

Are these the 8800 Epics?

[Oykib 0]

Oykib:

Are these the 8800 Epics?

No they are the 8600's. The bottom of the pad doesn't taper and is squared off. I think this is the reason for the wear.