Bauer OD1N Project

[Law Goalie 147]

^^Aye-aye, skipper. (Though my appreciation of flip's flippancy was derived largely from a different source of delight, The Bluffer's Guide to Philosophy...

My read is that, if strapped properly, the weight-drop will have a much greater effect on recoveries, and backside movement generally, than on butterfly transitions or on squeezing the five-hole with the groin. Every time you pop the knee up and plant the foot, you're hoisting that much less weight with your hips. Preserving the hips from fatigue will ultimately mean goalies can transition through butterfly positions more frequently and with greater force (i.e. 'knee-drive') in the course of a game, but the benefit lies primarily in getting-out-of rather than getting-into.

LRT, your point is well taken in general, but I'd suggest that removing weight from the end of a lever will have a more significant and measurable impact than microscopic aerodynamics. Using controlled science to market a product may be a cliché, and while the numbers may not bear out quite so perfectly, massive [har har] weight reductions surely matter.

[smcgreg 81]

Here's what Ken Campbell from the Hockey News had to say about the launch. Hard to measure product performance based on one player but so far it doesn't seem to have done anything for Lundqvist.

"Hockey equipment giant Bauer has done much the same thing with its new OD1N line of equipment for skaters and goalies. The company, which unveiled its new line today in Chicago, spent a million dollars to outfit six players – Alex Ovechkin, Nicklas Backstrom, Claude Giroux, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane and Henrik Lundqvist – with the express purpose of making them lighter, faster and better.

Or as Craig Desjardins, general manager of ice hockey equipment for Bauer claims, “This equipment gives players a measurable scientific benefit on the ice.”

Well, we’re not exactly sure what means are being used to measure Lundqvist’s benefits. Before wearing the OD1N goal pads, Lundqvist had an 8-11-0 record with a 2.51 goals-against average and a .917 save percentage. Since donning the pads for a Nov. 5 game against the Buffalo Sabres, Lundqvist has gone 2-3-1 with a 3.41 GAA and .878 save percentage."

I guess "one inch faster" isn't quite fast enough.

One inch faster, what is that, like a light year? Since when is an inch a time unit?

This is the same marketing spin that cycling manufacturers have been using for years. Nobody realistically expects that the new Specialized Shiv or Zip 404 dimpling will save 3.7 seconds or 56 watts over the course of a time trial, but that's what the controlled, scientific data suggests. It's a way to market the product using science -- pure and simple. Anybody who shaves their legs and wears spandex shorts is accustomed to this kind of wool over the eyes, but it's still interesting to see how hockey people react to it.

Lots of people believe those claims. in fact, 3.7 sec over the course of a 40 k is easily attributable to frame or component improvements. The main difference is that one can directly convert wind tunnel tested performance improvements to cycling performance improvements in the field because the relationship between power, weight, aerodynamics and speed are relatively straight forward in cycling (dimpling on 404 aside since one can argue about the applicability of tripping the boundary layer at speeds relevant to 40 km TT performance). Hockey on the other hand is a tad more complicated.

[troy 12]

Haha, seriously, Shocker's always been a snappy dresser since the day I first met him 14 yrs ago. I said the same thing.

Shocker and Tim Pearson were my first Bauer contacts when I got in the business, and they're still around. Tim's son now plays for the LA Kings.

They validated it. Don't you think that it would be common sense to think that through? I'm pretty sure they did.

Bauer APX2 Pro

Oh I'm sure the Bauer folks are just as clever as I am, but things happen in games that can not be tested for. With the variety of patterns being used and the way sticks get articulated during puck battles I'm curious about how the holders can prevent stick-lodging. The handling of pucks at the feet seems like it would take the most getting used to.

[hound97 3]

I guess "one inch faster" isn't quite fast enough.

One inch faster, what is that, like a light year? Since when is an inch a time unit?

Since the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

[thejackal 46]

since we re on the topic of pad weights, here's something I've been wondering: would mandating HEAVIER pads at the NHL level increase scoring at a significant level?

was debating this with a goalie who works with some pros (and plays net with pavelec's pro returns) and he thinks it'll lead to guys getting hurt, but pads were significantly heavier the years past, anyway.

[wrangler 157]

Since the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

Excellent! That's one that always jumps out at me.

[smcgreg 81]

Since the Millennium Falcon made the Phil Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

Nice, but I fixed that for you. It's geek day on MSH. ;)

I will now refrain from pushing this any more off topic.

[shooter27 116]

I guess "one inch faster" isn't quite fast enough.

One inch faster, what is that, like a light year? Since when is an inch a time unit?

From reading the press kit I think the point is that it changes the position/shooting angles. For instance in a cross ice pass where the goal goes from, say, the left post to the top of the right circle - the decreased weight allows him to get 1" further out toward the shooter in the same amount of time, which decreases the net available to shoot at from the angle of the puck. It may not be a big decrease, but it may be the difference between a shot ticking the pad and going in or hitting the pad solidly and not going in.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Haha, seriously, Shocker's always been a snappy dresser since the day I first met him 14 yrs ago. I said the same thing.

Shocker and Tim Pearson were my first Bauer contacts when I got in the business, and they're still around. Tim's son now plays for the LA Kings.

They validated it. Don't you think that it would be common sense to think that through? I'm pretty sure they did.

Bauer APX2 Pro

In Montreal at the last show there!

[Law Goalie 147]

From reading the press kit I think the point is that it changes the position/shooting angles. For instance in a cross ice pass where the goal goes from, say, the left post to the top of the right circle - the decreased weight allows him to get 1" further out toward the shooter in the same amount of time, which decreases the net available to shoot at from the angle of the puck. It may not be a big decrease, but it may be the difference between a shot ticking the pad and going in or hitting the pad solidly and not going in.

That's the point. The 'Kessel Run' jokes are admittedly funny, but not really applicable.

If Bauer's point had been that the lighter pads allowed goalies to get from point A to point B in less time, and they had mistakenly used inches (or parsecs) as a measure of time, the 'KR' jokes would apply. That would, however, make little sense for Bauer to claim from a technical perspective. While goalies do need to react with minimal point-to-point time once the shot is released (or tipped), and lighter pads do allow for theoretically faster reactions, the situation is different *prior* to the release, which is clearly the moment Bauer's rhetoric is addressing.

Prior to the release, how quickly a goalie can get from A to B (all other things being equal) is not that important; if I'm at the top of the crease 1s before the release instead of 0.5s prior, all that really does is give the shooter more time to read my position and *not* shoot. This is the basic principle of angle-baiting: you delay a positional adjustment just enough to draw the shot you want. What's important prior to the release is not a-to-B, but A-to-B+x -- how much *better* a position you can reach than B. While there is no absolute sense in which one position is better than another, it is generally agreed that in shots that breach the human reaction threshold (e.g. a one-timer from the low slot) the *closer* you can get to the release-point, the better: the more you fill the shooting triangle (puck to posts) with your body, and especially the vertical or aerial angle (puck to underside of crossbar) with your torso, the less chance the shooter has to put the puck around you. THAT is where Bauer gets the '1 inch closer' claim: with the same applied force, in the same period of pre-release time, the OD1N pads will (in theory) get you 1" closer to the release-point, which chops a non-trivial amount off the available vertical angle.

KILLJOY'S CONCLUSION: Bauer did not in fact commit a 'Kessel Fallacy'. However, the way in which they expressed their point in the published materials is *just* murky enough that they do leave themselves open to more general attacks on writing style. This puts me in mind of what Harrison Ford famously said to Lucas after receiving a bunch of new pages, hot off the Selectric: "George, you can type this shit, but you sure can't say it..."

[smcgreg 81]

That's the point. The 'Kessel Run' jokes are admittedly funny, but not really applicable.

If Bauer's point had been that the lighter pads allowed goalies to get from point A to point B in less time, and they had mistakenly used inches (or parsecs) as a measure of time, the 'KR' jokes would apply. That would, however, make little sense for Bauer to claim from a technical perspective. While goalies do need to react with minimal point-to-point time once the shot is released (or tipped), and lighter pads do allow for theoretically faster reactions, the situation is different *prior* to the release, which is clearly the moment Bauer's rhetoric is addressing.

Prior to the release, how quickly a goalie can get from A to B (all other things being equal) is not that important; if I'm at the top of the crease 1s before the release instead of 0.5s prior, all that really does is give the shooter more time to read my position and *not* shoot. This is the basic principle of angle-baiting: you delay a positional adjustment just enough to draw the shot you want. What's important prior to the release is not a-to-B, but A-to-B+x -- how much *better* a position you can reach than B. While there is no absolute sense in which one position is better than another, it is generally agreed that in shots that breach the human reaction threshold (e.g. a one-timer from the low slot) the *closer* you can get to the release-point, the better: the more you fill the shooting triangle (puck to posts) with your body, and especially the vertical or aerial angle (puck to underside of crossbar) with your torso, the less chance the shooter has to put the puck around you. THAT is where Bauer gets the '1 inch closer' claim: with the same applied force, in the same period of pre-release time, the OD1N pads will (in theory) get you 1" closer to the release-point, which chops a non-trivial amount off the available vertical angle.

KILLJOY'S CONCLUSION: Bauer did not in fact commit a 'Kessel Fallacy'. However, the way in which they expressed their point in the published materials is *just* murky enough that they do leave themselves open to more general attacks on writing style. This puts me in mind of what Harrison Ford famously said to Lucas after receiving a bunch of new pages, hot off the Selectric: "George, you can type this shit, but you sure can't say it..."

I'm sure most of the people making the jokes fully understand the intent of the statement, but why 1 inch? Why not 10 inches or 1 meter (ok, that's metric, but still)? The smart ass responses are essentially multi-layered, the first layer pointing fun at the fact that they used a distance measure as a time unit. For the astute geeks watching, that's an obvious non-sequitur. The second, possibly less obvious, layer pointing at the fact that they are simply throwing an arbitrary number out there (i.e. one inch) that may or may not be based on a calculation, but emphasizing it in such a way as to be treating it as if it's a demonstrable fact. To me, it would have much more weight (pardon the pun) if they simply said something to the effect,.. "we cut 20 % of the weight off of the pads" and anybody who plays goalie should know that's huge. Why throw out this ridiculous statement about "one inch faster"? It was reminiscent of Derek Smalls saying it's "one louder". Sometimes the marketing hype detracts from the quality of the product.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

Oh I'm sure the Bauer folks are just as clever as I am, but things happen in games that can not be tested for. With the variety of patterns being used and the way sticks get articulated during puck battles I'm curious about how the holders can prevent stick-lodging. The handling of pucks at the feet seems like it would take the most getting used to.

In-game use is part of the validation process.

[shooter27 116]

I'm sure most of the people making the jokes fully understand the intent of the statement, but why 1 inch? Why not 10 inches or 1 meter (ok, that's metric, but still)? The smart ass responses are essentially multi-layered, the first layer pointing fun at the fact that they used a distance measure as a time unit. For the astute geeks watching, that's an obvious non-sequitur. The second, possibly less obvious, layer pointing at the fact that they are simply throwing an arbitrary number out there (i.e. one inch) that may or may not be based on a calculation, but emphasizing it in such a way as to be treating it as if it's a demonstrable fact. To me, it would have much more weight (pardon the pun) if they simply said something to the effect,.. "we cut 20 % of the weight off of the pads" and anybody who plays goalie should know that's huge. Why throw out this ridiculous statement about "one inch faster"? It was reminiscent of Derek Smalls saying it's "one louder". Sometimes the marketing hype detracts from the quality of the product.

I would guess that 1-inch isn't a random unit used, it's what they measured from their product testing, because if it's more why not say so (obviously they wouldn't want to use a smaller measurement). Much like they used 11.8" regarding the increased speed in a 50 foot race to the puck for the protective. Both those items are directly measurable (measuring the amount of weight lifted in a skate through a game is tougher unless you figure out how to exactly count each stride, and even then the number of strides varies from game to game). Now, whether it's a true apples to apples comparison with the only difference being the pads (same player, same amount of push force, same vector of force, etc.) is another discussion.

[beerleaguecaptain 999]

But do ya like the way the skates look??? I'm not loving the modernistic bladerunner look.

[malcb33 97]

I guess Bauer assumed Giroux is making the Canadian team....

I can understand why, but it will be a tough call with the way he started the season.

[Law Goalie 147]

I'm sure most of the people making the jokes fully understand the intent of the statement, but why 1 inch? Why not 10 inches or 1 meter (ok, that's metric, but still)? The smart ass responses are essentially multi-layered, the first layer pointing fun at the fact that they used a distance measure as a time unit. For the astute geeks watching, that's an obvious non-sequitur. The second, possibly less obvious, layer pointing at the fact that they are simply throwing an arbitrary number out there (i.e. one inch) that may or may not be based on a calculation, but emphasizing it in such a way as to be treating it as if it's a demonstrable fact. To me, it would have much more weight (pardon the pun) if they simply said something to the effect,.. "we cut 20 % of the weight off of the pads" and anybody who plays goalie should know that's huge. Why throw out this ridiculous statement about "one inch faster"? It was reminiscent of Derek Smalls saying it's "one louder". Sometimes the marketing hype detracts from the quality of the product.

Not to be too much of a stickler, but the 1" isn't arbitrary; it's the thickness of a puck. The materials clearly state that this is in relation to the elimination of the aerial angle, which is where the thickness of a puck would be important.

As I said, the writing deserves to be tweaked (both in the sense of improved, and in 'to tweak the nose'), but the underlying idea is completely sound.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

There was no $ restriction, that was the point.

"We put out a challenge to our R&D in St Jerome, a contest, We challenged them with the notion, What if we completely eliminated any cost restrictions, what if they were able to use any material never used in the sport of hockey...." 06:20 of Keynote video.

I think they were Kevlar based iirc

Now, I'd be very careful interpreting that as the production budget was unlimited. Telling your engineers and designers that budget is not a concern is a way to get them to consider all radical concepts. Its obvious that they had many, many concepts and settled on these three. You'd be foolish to not think that part of the scope narrowing wasn't cost related, or even manufacturability.

Its the same thing with any other concept industry... There's concept cars. Then there are concept cars that were produced and actually function.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

It wasn't, as I stated in the original post. They still had to build a "budget" as part of the process.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

So all of this discussion about unit selection is complete garbage.

The goalie is 8.2 x 10^-19 parsecs faster.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

So if they can make the equipment fit like a glove? Why not make a boot that is so moldable it takes away all negative space on any foot. That would be something to see!

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

So if they can make the equipment fit like a glove? Why not make a boot that is so moldable it takes away all negative space on any foot. That would be something to see!

What's happened to you?

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

What's happened to you?

Nothing has happened to me......?

I am simply asking if they could do that with the equipment in such a tight fit I think it would have been really cool if they could have done that for the skates as well. Skate weight although is a key I think a better fit is more important.

[Law Goalie 147]

I think (reading between the lines) this initiative is more about ensuring a perfect fit before fabrication, rather than after. Fit is definitely king, I'm sure we can all agree, but the option of pilgrimage to the Temple of St. Jerome remains one for the few.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Oh totally agree. Just saying I think if I had that task I would go for fit after sale but then that would not fit into the ideas they were given. Ahh maybe next time. That scanner thing was pretty neat and if that could be used for skates man that would be worth the price tag I think.

[DarkStar50 679]

Well now you are talking about building skates at the price of building an F-1 race car. Each foot last would need a custom built mold in order to shape the Curv Composite exactly to the scanned 3-d imaging of the foot. Having seen some behind the curtain detail on how Bauer builds T1 NXGs, this would be pretty pricey!! One can only dream............