Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
VermonterDad

CCM runners taper in thickness

Recommended Posts

I am relatively new to hockey and have been sharpening my kid's skates (and her teammates) for about a year. I have had very good results and feedback. But yesterday I got a pair of CCMs and I noticed that I was having trouble sharpening them. I took a close look at the runners and the thickness of the runners tapers from the usual .115" near the plastic holder to .100" or so at the edge that contacts the ice. You can actually see the falloff of the thickness of the metal as it nears the ice contact edge by holding a starrett straight edge to the face of the runner. I have not seen this on any other runners. The dad who gave me the skates said the CCM runners were brand new. So my question is whether this is an intentional part of the design or a manufacturing defect or something that happened on first sharpening when they were purchased? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. Here is a link to a picture of the boot and runner

https://photos.app.goo.gl/mmpuuubdFouWYwiF6

Also, I don't know whether you can make it out, but here's a link to a picture showing the taper on the runner. You may be able to see the substantial gap under the straight edge on the last 1/16" or 3/32" of width on the runner. 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/tqK8CBuaGvAt9ekUA

 

 

 

Edited by VermonterDad
Add info, clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The runners were slightly different thickness. One was tapered more than the other. The one that was more tapered measured down almost at .100" in places. Yes I was using calipers. I routinely check the thickness of runners before I sharpen them and these seemed fine, but that's because I snugged up the tips of the calipers to just under the plastic holder, which gave me a normal thickness. But when I had problems getting a nice edge I checked again, more carefully and nearer the ice-contact edge and that's when I noticed the change in thickness there. Most of the skates I sharpen are Bauers and generally measure .115 or so thick . And although some are slightly thinner from multiple stonings, I've not seen runners so thin at the edge until these CCMs so I thought maybe CCm does this normally. I have contacted CCM to ask but have not heard back.  BTW I inserted a link in my earlier post with a picture of the straight edge on the runner and the gap. Don't know whether you'll be able to see it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

That looks really weird.  If you hadn't said "new runners", my guess would be that someone was using a honing stone incorrectly.  But even then, that would need to be A LOT of honing.

edit:  Looking at the picture of the full boot, it looks like the printing on the blade is gone lower down towards the runner's edge.  To me, that says that at some point someone hit those blades with something to cause that wear.  Presumably honing but ??

edit again:  Maybe someone using a sweet stick type of thing aggressively?


I'm certainly no expert though.

Mark

Edited by marka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the finish on the sides of the steel look the same?  Sorry for the questions but I'm wondering if someone deliberately ground the sides of the steel to make it thinner (kinda how the Tuuk V2 was and a reverse Flare.)

If not, it's a stock set.  The boot is also a SMU - wonder if they put seconds steel on them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I totally agree. JR, the steel does look "worked" to me. I just have no idea why the factory or someone not at the factory would grind or work the faces of the runners, other than to lighty stone and remove the burr from the grinding wheel of course. And as Mark points out, it would take many, many heavy stonings to get that much taper.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just clicked on the photo and it opened up - seems someone ground it down to make it thinner.

I'm on a Facebook group with other skate sharpeners and someone posted a picture of steel like that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JR Boucicaut said:

[snip]

Those things do more harm than good. 

Agreed.  Every time I see one in a kid's bag, I tell the parents to throw it away.  Too many people think they're a substitute for skate sharpening.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm getting the feeling that no one has heard of any runners that intentionally have this sort of thickness taper from the factory, and that any taper is the result of a manufacturing defect, bad sharpening/honing, or overuse of one of these V-shaped ceramic honing things. Thanks, guys. I appreciate the input.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting thing to me is this " The dad who gave me the skates said the CCM runners were brand new."   My question would be where were they obtained?  As JR noted they have been ground down. I'd guess they weren't from a shop but Ebay/Sideline etc and were someone's project passed off as new.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 12:10 PM, VermonterDad said:

So I'm getting the feeling that no one has heard of any runners that intentionally have this sort of thickness taper from the factory, and that any taper is the result of a manufacturing defect, bad sharpening/honing, or overuse of one of these V-shaped ceramic honing things. Thanks, guys. I appreciate the input.  

I have seen a few defects that are sort of similar, but not exact. This would be an anomaly. If they are in fact fairly new he could ask for new steel from CCM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally got a reply from CCM. Here it is:

"After reviewing the issue with our skate department , we have come to the conclusion that the thickness of the blades from top to bottom vary depending on the model of the blade. Some models may have a very slight taper depending on which model is used, although generally the goal is to have at least 2.75mm in contact with the ice which would help with the sharpening. 2.8mm and above is optimal. 

There’s no way for us to tell if this is a result of the first sharpening. 

Regards,

~CCM Hockey Team"

The 2.8mm "optimal" thickness converts to .110". It would have been nice for them to go into why there might be a taper at all. Anyway, that's their answer.

 

 

Edited by VermonterDad
Add info, clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That response from CCM is so hard to read and parse. The goal is 2.75mm but optimal is 2.8mm and above. As a consumer, it would be nice to read that the optimal number is also their goal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, start_today said:

That response from CCM is so hard to read and parse. The goal is 2.75mm but optimal is 2.8mm and above. As a consumer, it would be nice to read that the optimal number is also their goal. 

oxymoron...... makes no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t say it’s an oxymoron. It’s just them making a statement that their base standards aren’t in line with what their research shows to be optimal. I mean, it’s 1/20th of a millimeter, so it’s not a huge amount, but still. 

And, the weird phrase about “ generally the goal is to have at least 2.75mm in contact with the ice which would help with the sharpening.“ just doesn’t make sense. What you have touching the ice is a separate concept for what is ideal for sharpening. 

Seems like it was written by an intern who is still learning how to communicate. Or they wrote back a bunch of jargon just to give a response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, start_today said:

I wouldn’t say it’s an oxymoron. It’s just them making a statement that their base standards aren’t in line with what their research shows to be optimal. I mean, it’s 1/20th of a millimeter, so it’s not a huge amount, but still. 

And, the weird phrase about “ generally the goal is to have at least 2.75mm in contact with the ice which would help with the sharpening.“ just doesn’t make sense. What you have touching the ice is a separate concept for what is ideal for sharpening. 

Seems like it was written by an intern who is still learning how to communicate. Or they wrote back a bunch of jargon just to give a response. 

Or a non-native English speaker wrote it. With CCM (and Bauer) being based in Quebec, it's not out of the realm of possibility that whoever wrote that speaks English as a second language.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...