Nike Hi-Ho Silver 2

[mik3 1]

Does anyone know any real difference between these and the originals?

[Aussie Joe 0]

The boot is pretty much the same. Nike claims to have tweeked the liner abit but those who have the original Hi Ho's all say the liner was sweet anyways. I personally would have liked to have seen some more side protection on the inside of the heel as my skates and my mates Hi Ho's are rubbing abit when stopping and falling.

The frame comes with a 72-72-80-78 setup. Its called the TUUK "One up" but its the same TUUK frame on the new Bauers. Seems like a good idea and it also can be converted to a Hi Lo as well, via a back wheel rocker system. The wheels are Rink Rats (Thank God too as I hated the Dynastys!) Same bearings though.

So a few major to minor changes below the boot. I think If this was how the Hi Ho come out to begin with it would have been one of the sweetest Roller Hockey skates of all time. Aside from the price of course.

[kovalchuk71 212]

Anyone Have a picture?

EDIT: My bad....it's amazing what a simple search can do..... ;)

[GeeZa32 0]

The boot is pretty much the same. Nike claims to have tweeked the liner abit but those who have the original Hi Ho's all say the liner was sweet anyways. I personally would have liked to have seen some more side protection on the inside of the heel as my skates and my mates Hi Ho's are rubbing abit when stopping and falling.

The frame comes with a 72-72-80-78 setup. Its called the TUUK "One up" but its the same TUUK frame on the new Bauers. Seems like a good idea and it also can be converted to a Hi Lo as well, via a back wheel rocker system. The wheels are Rink Rats (Thank God too as I hated the Dynastys!) Same bearings though.

So a few major to minor changes below the boot. I think If this was how the Hi Ho come out to begin with it would have been one of the sweetest Roller Hockey skates of all time. Aside from the price of course.

So the 3rd wheel is higher than the 4th??? Are these lowriders or something?

[GekigangarIII 0]

So the 3rd wheel is higher than the 4th??? Are these lowriders or something?

No the 3rd wheel is the same height as the 1st and 2nd, it's the 4th wheel that's rockered up (the 78).

Essentially, just take a standard hi-lo and put a 78mm on the back wheel, that's what it is... if you take off the 78 and put an 80 on there it's just a hi-lo.

[thunderbirds_are_go 0]

Anyone know why they've done this? Sounds like it's still a hi-lo chassis, so it would still fall under Mission's patent wouldn't it?

[MDE3 0]

Nike may well have agreed to pay royalties to use the "split axle plane" design in their chassis(covers more than just HiLo). I think the only reason that they may be doing this is that they are offering a "token" rocker arrangement, which some people still think of as an advantage. However anyone who doesn't like it can switch back very easily. I am not sure what the official technical justification is for doing this, and I suspect it may be more for marketing than anything else.

[xunkn0vvnx 0]

mission has a patent on the hi-lo... this is just nikes move around it... smart move might I add, its one wheel off from the hi-lo that can easily be fixed

[thunderbirds_are_go 0]

I realise that Mission owns the patent for the hi-lo, but from the sounds of it, this new BNH chassis will still fall under it, and isn't a move around it. If the rear axle is still on the same plane as the second to rear axle, it's still going to be a "split axle plane" design, so they'd still have to pay royalties, wouldn't they? Also, if the front wheel is rockered (as is the case on many hi-lo chassis) doesn't this mean three alxe planes, the same as the CCM Tri-di? Anyone know exactly what does and what doesn't fall under the patent?

[MDE3 0]

I realise that Mission owns the patent for the hi-lo, but from the sounds of it, this new BNH chassis will still fall under it, and isn't a move around it. If the rear axle is still on the same plane as the second to rear axle, it's still going to be a "split axle plane" design, so they'd still have to pay royalties, wouldn't they? Also, if the front wheel is rockered (as is the case on many hi-lo chassis) doesn't this mean three alxe planes, the same as the CCM Tri-di? Anyone know exactly what does and what doesn't fall under the patent?

Just curious, which HiLo chassis' have the front wheel rockered...I mean by this on a fixed "straight chassis".... and from the factory? You mentioned CCM's. I know several individuals who have done this on their own, but I did not know it was being supplied this way from the factory.

[blueline 0]

I believe that the Mission Generator chassis (and maybe all of their hi-lo chassis prior to the D1) has a slightly rockered front wheel. I remember Justin saying that one of his first moves was to remove the rockered front wheel.

[anotherlin 0]

I believe that the Mission Generator chassis (and maybe all of their hi-lo chassis prior to the D1) has a slightly rockered front wheel. I remember Justin saying that one of his first moves was to remove the rockered front wheel.

Yes, both Penetrator and Generator chassis have their front wheel pre-rockered.

[fatwabbit 93]

i think epuck.com has some pictures of the new range of nike skates. Heard that they even include 2 additional 80mm wheels for each pair of skates in case you prefer to use the 72-72-80-80 configuration rather than the 72-72-80-78 that is out of the box...

not too sure about this though... cant remember where i heard it from...

[MDE3 0]

I believe that the Mission Generator chassis (and maybe all of their hi-lo chassis prior to the D1) has a slightly rockered front wheel.  I remember Justin saying that one of his first moves was to remove the rockered front wheel.

Yes but that "rocker" was a total of .0005" or a "twenty thousandths" of an inch, and at one point was one forty thousandth of an inch, from what I have heard...actually meaningless in terms of rockering..more likely to have had something to do with allowing for theoretical heat expansion on the front wheel. That's why removing it made sense.

[anotherlin 0]

Yes but that "rocker" was a total of .0005" or a "twenty thousandths" of an inch, and at one point was one forty thousandth of an inch, from what I have heard...actually meaningless in terms of rockering..more likely to have had something to do with allowing for theoretical heat expansion on the front wheel. That's why removing it made sense.

Well, I don't know exactly how much it was, but that's not

completely theory. The first wheel just does not touch the ground,

there's like 2mm (sorry, I use the metric system, I grew up in

Europe). The skate can really be pitched forward on its two front

wheels.

Now speaking about the theoretical heat expansion, I don't think

there is such thing, or at least that they expand that much. Wheels

do get "bent" and "shaped" during skating, but not that much. On my

generator (small size), the wheels are almost touching, there's

really at most 1-2mm between each of them. Never had a problem.

The other thing is that if there was indeed on expansion, the second,

third, and fourth wheels will also expand and lift the first wheel up.

So if the first wheel was pre-rockered, it would remain pre-rockered.

Now back to the hi-ho, I've checked epuck. You can change the

fourth 78mm wheel back to 80mm. Basically, Nike is a big corporate

run by lawyers, and that's a cheap way not to pay royalties to Mission

(how surprising). On top of that, they market that as a "big innovation".

Just put some 78mm wheels on your regular high low, your rocker

will have a wheel base 1mm longer than what's theoretically possible

with the one up, but so what? You won't feel the difference. Plus, it

will also depend on if you have a small, medium, or large chassis.

From my personnal experience, turns and pivot are much easier with

a pre-rockered front wheel. A rockered last wheel doesn't change

much. Actually, I even prefer the fourth wheel on the ground, I have

more grip in turns.

[MDE3 0]

"The first wheel just does not touch the ground,

there's like 2mm (sorry, I use the metric system, I grew up in Europe). The skate can really be pitched forward on its two front wheels."

I stand corrected..I must have misunderstood that information from someone in the skate manufacturing business. None of the 3-4 pairs of older Mission skates we had were visibly rockered...1996 and 1997 models. I have also heard many people claim that the new Tour skates are "rockered" because someone placed them on a "flat" surface and could make the front, or rear wheel spin with the others in contact. For this to happen you need only a minor imperfection on the "flat surface", or simply to push down on one end or the other very slightly. I know the Tours are not rockered.

[anotherlin 0]

I stand corrected..I must have misunderstood that information from someone in the skate manufacturing business. None of the 3-4 pairs of older Mission skates we had were visibly rockered...1996 and 1997 models. I have also heard many people claim that the new Tour skates are "rockered" because someone placed them on a "flat" surface and could make the front, or rear wheel spin with the others in contact. For this to happen you need only a minor imperfection on the "flat surface", or simply to push down on one end or the other very slightly. I know the Tours are not rockered.

I don't know for the newest He950, D1c, or D1. But I can

confirm that Detonator, Penetrator, and Generator chassis

have pre-rockered front wheels. Put them on a flat surface

and you can spin the front wheels.

[SnakeEyes29 0]

talkin about the hi-ho's-i havent noticed a difference between the hi-ho's and quest-1's,as well as the quest 2's

[Eazy_b97 1]

I thought the Quest series was supposed to be very narrow, where the V series is much wider.

[MDE3 0]

[

I don't know for the newest He950, D1c, or D1. But I can

confirm that Detonator, Penetrator, and Generator chassis

have pre-rockered front wheels. Put them on a flat surface

and you can spin the front wheels.

I did a bit more research on the subject since my first posts in this topic, and found out some things.

The "rockering" involved was minute on those Mission chassis, but yes they were(as was accurately stated), but I think it was originally .040" and then .020". The newer series are no longer "rockered".

The "rockering" of the rear wheels on the Nike is purely an attempt to get around the HiLo patent (as was indicated by "anotherlin"), because although the patent covers axles in different planes, there is also some language which requires that the wheels touch the floor simultaneously when the axles are created in these different planes, for the patent to be valid. That is one reason why Mission no longer "rockers" it's front wheel, because that would possibly reduce the strength of their patent. The issue of having a wheel not touching the floor on a HiLo chassis, has yet to be challenged in court...that I know of.

By not having the rear wheel touching the floor, Nike is I am sure gambling, based on advice of their own patent attornies, that they are no longer responsible for any "breach of patent". Technically as a manufacturer they honored the letter of the patent by shipping the skate with the rear wheel not touching the floor....It almost looks like Nike is "flipping the bird" at Mission by even shipping the 80 mm wheel in the box with the skate. :P

I am sure we will see some haggling over this. If there was really enough money involved, I am sure this patent could be defeated, as there was probably "prior art" if someone digs hard enough....there usually is. The problem is that the number of skates a manufacturer needs to sell to pay for all the legal costs of such a challenge makes it cost ineffective.

[anotherlin 0]

The "rockering" involved was minute on those Mission chassis, but yes they were(as was accurately stated), but I think it was originally .040" and then .020". The newer series are no longer "rockered".

You really don't need a lot, 1mm is enough. Suppose you have a straight

chassis with 80mm wheels, just put a 78mm at the front and you have a 1mm

rocker (diameter = 78mm => radius = 39mm).

Yet, that's something you can really feel. I bought some skates with red star

E-Frame from Hockey Giant. Un-rockered front wheel hi-lo. It sucks. The

E-Frame is really well built, the materials and workmanship is impeccable, in

that regard it is even better than Generator. But I can't get use to the feel of

E-Frames. Maybe because it's the front wheel not pre-rockered or the pitch,

or because I'm too used to Missions, or something else. I'll be curious to know

why a lot of people like E-Frame or red star Alloy (same feel as E-frames?).

By not having the rear wheel touching the floor, Nike is I am sure gambling, based on advice of their own patent attornies, that they are no longer responsible for

I don't think they're gambling, Nike is a big corporate basically run by attornies

and mba hotshots. For them, it's not about sports, how a chassis feel, but rather

about money and legalities, so I guess it's a well calculed "coup".

I mean come on. From the pictures and description I've read from epuck, they

have rockered only the back wheel but not the front wheel. Their claim is that it

would reduce the wheelbase by 37% (with numbers that looks more high tech!).

I've never skated with them but I don't think that make much sense.

Rockering the front wheel is interesting because you can start turns and pivot

more easily, also it helps for accelerations. Having a back rocker along with a

front rocker allows you to further tighten your turns, and the pivots are even

easier. But having a back rocker alone doesn't make much sense, unless you

want to be able to start your backward turns fast? If you want to reduce the

wheelbase, it would seem more logical to rocker the front wheel.

My guess is that it's really a legal manipulation, any reasonnable player would

switch the last wheel back to 80mm.

I'll be curious to know why this patent issue has been raised only now and not

long ago. And what about red star with the Alloy which is a hi-lo with unrockered

front wheel? Justin, any comment?

[MDE3 0]

I believe Mission has only owned the patent rights for a few of years now. They were not the developers of the design but purchased it.

As far as the rockering...it's personal preference. If you feel good about it....use it.

I do know that a lot of top elite players are now using the Hu'mer chassis..with all 80 mm wheels which is really going in the opposite direction of the HiLO, and also the rockered chassis. For them the fear of lost agility in pivoting and turning seems to be a non issue. But of course these players are all very good skaters to begin with, and can adapt easily to small changes in feel. However the extra acceleration, stopping power, and reduced effort to maintain speed they have seen with this design seems to be considered a major gain....(not quoting "party line" here, just talking to those using the chassis, and watching them play every week). One that outweighs any slight changes in feel. The biggest negative change they see is when or if they switch back to their old chassis'.

Actually the apparent success of the Hum'er design was a direct benefit of the patent issues with the HiLo for Labeda. From what I understand they could not be happier about it, after battling the HiLo issue for some time.

Labeda, being the company who first popularized it (the original Mission HiLo chassis' were made for Mission by Labeda), were pretty dissapointed the way things turned out when Mission bought the patent rights. Now based on the positive response to those who have actually switched over to the Hum'er, and not those just talking about it, the Hum'er chassis appears to be a hit for Labeda, and consequently also for Tour.

Whatever works for you.

[Jim A 4]

while Nike may be a large company, of which BNH is a subsidary..they are separate companies...have their own budgets,etc..if you've been the home office in Greenland, NH you'd understand..and as someone who has watched Nike grow throughout my life, I'd say they are based more on innovation and marketing than lawyers..Knight and Bowerman much like Jake Burton are one of modern day sporting goods ultimate success stories...those guys were selling shoes out of their car 30 years ago..

anyway..the 78mm wheel, while yes being a way to get around that...was knocked around by the guys anyway before Mission started to enforce its patent..and has been used by people for years..

i've normally put a more worn down wheel in the back since one of the things that seems to carry over from my ice background to roller is that every now and then as a d-man I'll "catch" the back wheel while turning front to back and find it harder to make a seamless turn..in fact I used to buy some Krypto Adrenaline wheels on closeout (78mm/78A for .25 through Bravo) back in the late 90's when i was trying to adapt to the hi lo...

for me it was like trying to go from a Tuuk to a Pro Lite 3 on ice..ie a 9 to 11 foot radius...

[MDE3 0]

Rockering for those who switch back and forth from ice to inline regularily seems to be a solution for some to maintain consistency of style and feel, but I do not know any manufacturer who ever sent out a HiLO with a smaller rear wheel as a standard practice. I actually know only one player who ran 72 76,76, 72 as his standard set up. And he was frequently switching from ice to inline and found that arrangement made the transition less extreme.

The major adjustment for most who use flat versus rockered chassis, is that they cannot center pivot with a skate like this, as they would on a rockered ice blade. Hence the pivoting must be done either at the heel or the toe depending on the circumstances.

This is why players who are exclusively playing inline, do not really have an issue with a flat chassis. If they were already agile using a HiLo they will be agile on a straight frame too...the only adjustment being the weight transfer timing and postioning to effect these pivots. An experienced and agile player will make these adjustments very easily because they are basically just variations of what they are already effecting. The additional grip provided by having 4 wheels on the floor at certain times then becomes a benefit, not a liability for those who are comfortable with this arrangement. Having four bigger wheels simply amplifies this benefit for these players.

[Jim A 4]

I really liked the Hum'er when i skated on it a couple nights at NARCh this past summer...