Brians Zero G vs Smiths

[DangerIsGo 0]

So would someone be able to compare the Zero Gs vs Smiths SP6000s? A hockey store near me carries the ZGs and was wondering what the strengths and weaknesses were of each set to make a valid decision? I know that smiths are less expensive and more customizable but thats it.

[jimmy 194]

I've been using the ZeroG for about 6 months now, the big advantage is these things are so light. They are comfortable and Bfly extremely easy as well. Durability has been great at 4x a week play. I can't speak much for the Smiths, but as everyone knows they are top quality. Features wise, Smith, Vaughn and ZG are very similar.

I liked the ZG pads so much, I got the gloves (custom illegal sizing) and these things were almost 1/2lb lighter each than my old gloves. The catch is so crazy light, so easy to get the glove up quick.

Brian's offers a lot of mods and custom graphics, , so if you are looking for those options, Brian's is very accommodating.

[vision 0]

Tell you the end of this week.

::m

[Law Goalie 147]

Very interested to read your notes, vision; do keep us posted.

The Smith 6000s are very light pads, but I've never seen anything in the same league as a Brian's Zero-G in terms of weight: even the old Sherwood C-10 was a heifer compared to them. The combination of unusual foam choices and welding the foams rather than gluing and sewing around them really took a remarkable amount of weight off; almost as much as the overbuilt Reebok/Lefebvre pre-sewn zippered shell adds on. My guess is that you could get a pair of 38" Zero-G's under 3lbs per pad with the right kind of quick-release strapping (say, three attachment points apiece) and some Cordura on the face of the pad (much like Brian's used to do for Eddie Belfour back in the day).

I will say that some people have noted some unusual durability issues with Zero-G's, especially along the inside (medial) edge of the boot, and most of all at the medial corner of the toe. All pads wear along there, but some reports had the Zero-G's wearing way ahead of schedule. This appears to be because of the relative squareness of the boot, especially at that corner: the binding wears through pretty quickly, by some reports. That said, jimmy seems not to have had these issues, and he's certainly had them long enough to notice.

There have also been a few people who had issues getting the Zero-G's to rotate, but no more than any other pad; I'd put it down to a combination of their pants fighting with the pads and strapping, and good old user error.

I've heard just as many complaints about Smith's knee-pads, for what it's worth. There seems to be a way to make the knee-pads stay up that involves keeping the bottom strap (below the knee) tighter than the thigh-strap, wearing them under hockey socks or sweatpants, and putting a wrap of clear tape around them below the knee. Personally, I'd just get them sewn into my pants, which is what I've always done -- and that's not something, obviously, that Pete can offer to his customers with them shipping him their pants.

Personally, were I looking at this style of pad (square gusset, flat boot, comparable leg-channels), I'd go with Smith. That is largely because I've been lusting after them for years, despite remaining firmly committed to a round medial gusset, at least on the boot.

[DangerIsGo 0]

Forgive my ignorance (or the fact that I'm still relatively new to pads and the lingo :P) but what is the gusset and what is rounded vs flat? Im reading around and I still have no idea what you are referring to and how it impacts performance. Same thing goes for terms like "flat boot", "calf/knee wing", and "medial rolls" (last 2 referring to this thread: http://www.goalielife.com/showthread.php?t=2624 ) That would be greatly appreciated if you could point that out, especially with diagramed pics :)

I just want to make sure I understand all of this before I go spending >1.5k on new pads. Its not exactly chump change.

Edit: I just found this thread: http://www.goalieboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7103

which is very informative. Will come back with any further questions.

[Law Goalie 147]

That thread on GB is still useful; their now-dead wiki was even more helpful. It is, however, missing some information and a bit muddled in places.

The medial gusset is the part of the body of the pad the sits on the ice in the butterfly, along with the knee-wing and calf-wing. If you compare the pics of the RBK and Smith pads in the first thread you linked (from GL), you'll see the difference between round and square: the RBKs will appear to have a rounded part the runs the length of the pad along its inside (medial) edge, while the Smith pads are flat and 'square' in the same place.

The part of the pad that forms this round edge on the RBKs is often called a "medial roll", in slightly illogical contrast to the 'vertical roll' that runs up the outside (lateral) of the face of the pad; there is, however, another pad part that used to be called a "medial roll" (which the GB dictionary thread describes), so the term is somewhat confused.

Knee-wing and calf-wing are fairly well-described in the GB thread.

A 'flat boot' simply means that the underside of the boot (where your skate sits) is flat, rather than concave: there's no indented boot-channel for the skate to fit into, just a flat surface.

[DangerIsGo 0]

Law, thanks for clearing that up.

Also, in regards to the flat vs non-flat boot channel, is that just personal preference or are there pros and cons to each?

[Law Goalie 147]

I've been credibly informed that, biomechanically speaking, a flat boot is optimal for butterfly play. You want to minimise any resistance to the rotation of the foot, shin and knee behind the pad; resistance to the foot in particular can put enormous strain on the MCL and vastus lateralis unless you're very, very flexible.

That said, trying to move around with an almost perfectly L-shaped object strapped to your lower leg is not easy. Having a boot-channel (that is, not a flat boot) means that the pad moves more readily with your leg, so it feels more natural. This is doubly true if you're used to a more traditional pad with a good deal of lateral flexibility.

Basically, if you're wearing a pad that's soft enough that it bends naturally with your leg, a boot-channel is a good idea; if you're wearing a relatively stiff pad, a flat boot is optimal. There is a lot in between those two extremes that accounts for varying degrees of personal preference and design accommodation. Both Smith and Brian's have gone to a more or less flat boot with good reason.

[DangerIsGo 0]

You say that the flat boot is optimal for butterfly style (on stiffer pads) but has the potential to be bad for ankles and feet. What are the good and bad aspects of a boot channel?

Also, I noticed that Brians utilizes a squared boot whereas Smith utilizes tapered edges. Is there any benefit to square vs tapered boots edges? I mean, I do find myself now and again (more so recently) having a lower stance so I think I may benefit from the tapered edges.

And what exactly is the difference between the medial roll and the inside gusset? I've been looking and are they not the same thing?

I'm just trying to wonder what the smiths will get me that the brians wont and what the brians will get me that the smiths wont. So far I have that both utilize the flat boot, and square gusset while the brians are lighter and includes 'legal?' thigh pad which im used to with my brians (so no separate knee pad) and smiths are less expensive but include a knee pad (which im not used to).

Ive been looking at goaliestore.com's thread about brians 0Gs and there have been issues about premature wear. I'm not happy about that and Im also wondering if Smiths have had that issue, or any other pad for that matter? Someone said on GS to do this:

I will suggest 2 things that will make your Brian's (or any pad) last way longer.

1. Ask them to make the bottom trim (aka lasting) piece cover the binding all the way to the calf wrap.

2. Use Snoseal twice a year on high wear areas.

This will make your pads last for a very long time.

How true is that? I heard brians can mod the pad any which way you would like, is this before or after purchase? The store near me stocks Brians and is an authorized reseller (of course) so do I buy the pads first and have them mod it or do I get a custom set ? Ive been reading that the 0Gs are pretty stiff while the Vaughn Velocities are more flexible...where would Smiths lie? I'm going to guess closer to the 0Gs, correct?

Sorry for all the questions, as I said before, Id like to be knowledgeable in a $1500 purchase :P

[Law Goalie 147]

No, I said the flat boot was *good* for ankles and feet. A boot-channel (that is, not a flat boot) by definition resists the rotation of the foot behind the boot of the pad: specifically, the rotation of the toes towards the ice, and the heel away from it. You still need to have a lot of slack in the toe-ties, or a sliding toe-bridge and a small amount of slack, of course.

As I mentioned in my first post, Smith has rounded the medial corner of the toe for durability reasons. That spot is, in effect, the pivot-point for the transition of the pad from stance to butterfly, so rounding it both eases that rotation of the pad and spreads the pressure and associated friction out over a wider area. However, once you're in the butterfly, a perfectly square boot gives better coverage along the ice.

This is different than tapering or rounding the medial edge of the boot, which some argue allows a lower stance (as you suggest). See that GL thread for more on this. However, the idea that a tapered/rounded boot allows for a lower stance is only true if you tie the toe of your skate very tightly to the toe of the pad - that is, with zero slack and no sliding toe-bridge (as on the Smiths). Again, if your foot can move easily behind the pad, the pad by definition will not resist your movements.

Snoseal ultimately doesn't do anything positive for synthetic leather pads. The reason goalie used to waterproof their pads was to prevent them from rotting, back in the days of real leather and deer hair stuffing. That is a non-issue now: foams and synthetic leathers do not rot, and don't grow mold with such limited exposure to moisture.

Yes, Snoseal is a wax, and putting a wax over the surface of anything subject to abrasion will abrade the wax first and the surface second. However, Snoseal is slightly sticky, so not only will it degrade performance, it will tend to puck up little bits of crap wherever you go - sand, grit, etc. - which can start putting holes in the material ten times faster than ordinary wear. Using Snoseal on modern foam/PU leather (aka Jenpro) pads is dubious at best, superstitious at worst.

The medial gusset can include a medial roll, so to speak, if it is round. However, as I said, 'medial roll' is such a confused term that it's almost useless; it also refers to something else that is now illegal for use in sanctioned leagues.

I believe I've already addressed the issue of durability along the edge of the boot and toe-binding (which is that piece you were told to extend - always a good idea, BTW). Some thought it was extreme; some, like jimmy above, had no such issues.

Brian's can only modify the pad as part of a custom order; the LHS would have to do any modifications to their own stock. Replacing the toe-binding with a longer one is one of the easiest repairs you can do to a goalie pad.

The Zero-G's are relatively stiff. Smith (as has been discussed at length previously) designed the original Velocity for Vaughn. His pads remain closer to that level of flexibility. Smith no longer uses shredded foam as a primary material, so the 6000s will be slightly stiffer than Velocities, but stiff far more flexible than Zero-G's.

As for the knee-pads and thigh-guards, that's strictly personal. I use knee-pads, and have found them more protective and better for rotation.

[DangerIsGo 0]

Law, thanks for your response. So right now, I have:

Brians - Stiffer, more expensive, customizable, square gusset, flat boot, square boot, thigh guards

Smith - More flexible (than Brians), less expensive, customizable, square gusset, rounded medial corner of boot, flat boot, needs separate knee guards

So it looks as if a lot of it, same goes with any pad comparison, is personal preference and actually getting on the ice and trying a set. Now, I've already tried the smith set and I liked it, unfortunately, I wasn't looking for all the things as I would be looking for now. Does Brian have demo sets do you know?

[DangerIsGo 0]

How would I go about obtaining a demo set of the Zero Gs?

[Law Goalie 147]

You'd have to do it through a retailer; Brian's, as far as I know, doesn't send out demos to consumers. I'd just contact a bunch of retailers in MA that carry Brian's and ask about it. Some may have store returns or in-shop demos (ie. for their employees to test) which they'd let you demo on a 'try before you buy' basis.

Apart from that, look around locally for a guy who has a set, show up to the same skate, and bribe him with a case of beer.

[DangerIsGo 0]

I do have a question about the smiths that I forgot to ask and it's kinda a deal breaker... when using the demo set, I found myself sliding a LOT when I was in a butterfly, to the point where it was unbearable. I would find myself go from one post to well beyond the other post with little to no effort even after 2 hours of playing (and I did chop up the crease prior to playing with no effect). Is this a pad thing or does the ice just suck? This doesn't happen with my current brians air max pads so I was wondering if it was a pad thing or an ice thing. I just don't want to get smiths and find out that Im an oversized curling stone. :P

[Law Goalie 147]

You'd find the same thing with any modern pro pad coming from an Air Max. You could scrape that ice for two hours with freshly-sharpened skates on 3/8" ROH, and the coefficient of friction would still be so low compared to your old pads that it would make effectively no difference what pads you were using, how fresh the ice was, or any other factor.

Put it this way: you're moving from snow-shoes to skis, so *any* ski is going to feel impossibly fast compared to your old snowshoes. Some skis are faster than others, but you'd hardly notice with that frame of reference. It's just a different way of playing the game.

If you want to control that slide, just pop your frontside (lead) leg up enough to get an edge into the ice, and stop yourself that way; this has the added advantage of being able to push you back the other way, if need be.

If, in time, you find that you still feel out of control, you can have new knee-wings made with a Cordura surface, which doesn't slide anywhere near as fast as Jenpro or other synthetic leathers on ice. Luongo has this done on every set of Reebok pads he gets from Lefebvre. You could, I suppose, ask for these to be made at the same time as your pads, so it would just be a question of swapping them out later. However, the Cordura will fray much faster from that added friction, and I'd generally advise just getting used to the faster sliding; it's really not that much of an adjustment beyond a little new edgework.

[docar15 1]

To add to what LawGaolie said earlier, the sky is trully a limit. You are comparing two of the few pad makers that still offer customization that will not require you to donate a kidney.

Also, I wanted to comment about the stiffness of the Smith's. Pete can make them as stiff or as soft as you would like. You tell him what you want for rebounds, pad stiffness, etc.

I hear nothing but good things about ZeroGs as well. Both pads are some of the lightest, which could be a fallback, for me at least. And if you are wanting a deep boot and leg channel, why not look at some other designs both of them offer?

There is a video of the Smiths 6000 being used on youtube, I think they are less then 6 hours old at that point:

Also here is his review, he is explaining some of the customization options too: