Fine tuning my skate profile

[puckpilot 312]

I'm currently stuck between two skate profiles, and am trying to figure out what's the best direction to go next. The first profile is a 13' with a neutral pitch.  This is OK, but at times I feel like I can get too much on my toes, so I tweaked things and went to 13' with a negative 1 pitch. This is good for not getting too much onto my toes, but since the glide edge is moved up, I've lost a tiny bit of stability in the heel. Not a major issue, but if I can address that I'd like to try.

I'm trying to determine if my thinking is sound and if the facts around which I'm basing things are correct.

My first thought was going back to a neutral pitch and going up in radius. From what I can gather--and I'm not sure how accurate this is--a negative 1 pitch moves the glide edge 5mm forward, so if I'm going up in radius from a neutral pitch I was thinking to add 5mm to each end of the glide edge, so it extends out to where the negative pitched glide edge would be around the toe while keeping and adding to the stability in the heel.

Now to select what radius to go up to, I was trying to find out what the exact size of my glide edge was, but the only information I could find regards CAG profiling. Not exactly the same as Prosharp. According to the CAG profiling information I could find a 25mm glide edge is similar to 6' radius, a 50mm glide edge is similar to a 11' radius, and a 65mm glide edge is similar to 14' radius. So if I do the math on this, the glide edge on a 13’ radius would be around 60mm, which would mean in order to add around 5mm to each end I’d be looking at getting 15’ profile radius. 

Is this right?

Using the data above, my second thought was to go up to a 14’ radius and do a negative 0.5 pitch. If my math and thinking is right, that would start the glide edge in the same position at the toe as the -1 pitch 13' profile and end it at the same part of the heel as the 13' neutral pitch profile.

So, does any of this make sense or did I go down a rabbit hole and only to realize I stuck my head up an elephant's arse? What are your thoughts on this?

 

Thanks in advance.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering why I'm using such a large profile radius, I'm a 175lb guy with size 4.5 feet, in 238mm steel. I find the smaller steel isn't as stable.

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by puckpilot

[boo10 323]

You're probably a good candidate for a CAG profile. 

[caveman27 208]

Well, I have short feet, I wear Bauer size 6.0 but I like a short radius 8'. 

You could try a dual-radius profile with a neutral pitch, where the back side of the blade gets a 15' radius and the front side of the blade gets a 13' radius.

But, what's your skating style and position? Are you playing forward and making deep/sharp turns? Or you play forward and are a weaker/slower skater so you play in a more upright skating stance? Are you playing defense and are upright more often than sprinting forward? Or maybe you play defense but are making deep C-cuts as an expert-level skater going backward and skate hard on transitions as an offensive defenseman?

[puckpilot 312]

1 hour ago, caveman27 said:

You could try a dual-radius profile with a neutral pitch, where the back side of the blade gets a 15' radius and the front side of the blade gets a 13' radius.

If anything, I'd rather have the 15 on the front and the 13 on the back. 😛 I have a pair of steel that's 13' neutral, and I'm happy with the heel stability on that. And I have  steel that's 13' pitched to a -1, which moves the glide edge forward, and I'm happy with the toe on that, but obviously, I lost a little stability on the back side, so I'm wondering how much pitching the blade moves the the glide edge forward. From google, it says it's 5mm, but I'm not sure if that's true.

I'm also wondering how the size of the glide edge changes with the size of the radius. If I know this for sure, I can hopefully determine the profile I'll need to be an approximate amalgam of the two profiles I'm using right now. From what I could gather and suss out--and I'm not sure how true it is-- a 13' radius should be around 60mm and a 15' would be 70mm. I'm just wondering if these numbers are true.

Quote

But, what's your skating style and position? Are you playing forward and making deep/sharp turns? Or you play forward and are a weaker/slower skater so you play in a more upright skating stance? Are you playing defense and are upright more often than sprinting forward? Or maybe you play defense but are making deep C-cuts as an expert-level skater going backward and skate hard on transitions as an offensive defenseman?

I play center, and during games I end up playing pretty much every position on the ice at one time or another. At heart, I'm a distributer, hence why I'm a center. I do a lot of curls and shifts to buy time, so I can find open teammates. But I can shift my game to whatever is needed at the time.

In terms of skating style, I'd say evolving, because I'm not entirely sure right now. I've always had issues with not bending my knees enough, but after going most of my life without doing enough about it, I recently started seriously working on things. Part of that has involved going from not paying any attention to what my profile was to, well, this mess I'm in right now. 😛 I found that the flatter radius allowed me to make large leaps on things I had stalled out on in terms of improvement. I'm actually quite surprised at how much of a difference it made. The extra stability has allowed me to start skating with my laces loose, and that has allowed me to get a better knee bend and a better feel for my edges.

Edited September 7, 2019 by puckpilot

[hockeydad3 51]

I went from 10' neutral profile to a 13' profile. Big gain in stability and glide. Lost a  noticeable amount of agility. And for the first skates I was often picking my toes. 

In your theory you are mixing pitch and profile. A completely flat profile won't change the pitch at all, you have to change the angle towards the ice by shims or insoles etc. 

By going to a negative pitch you will move your balancepoint to the heel which is not recommended. 

Adjust to your new profile, go to a dualradius or grind off a little steel underneath your toes. 

[puckpilot 312]

1 hour ago, hockeydad3 said:

I went from 10' neutral profile to a 13' profile. Big gain in stability and glide. Lost a  noticeable amount of agility. And for the first skates I was often picking my toes. 

At first I notice a the loss in agility, too, but I could do other things better for the most part, so I figured it was one step back and two steps forward. As I got more used to the profile, I didn't even notice the loss anymore. 

Quote

In your theory you are mixing pitch and profile. A completely flat profile won't change the pitch at all, you have to change the angle towards the ice by shims or insoles etc. 

Tweaking the pitch and profile is a means to an end. Right now I have two blade profiles, 13' neutral pitch and 13' negative pitch, that I'm generally happy with, but each has a 'flaw'.  So, I'm trying to get the glide edge situated so that it begins where my -1 pitched blade would be at the toe and ends at least where my neutral pitched blade ends at the heel. 

Quote

By going to a negative pitch you will move your balancepoint to the heel which is not recommended. 

Adjust to your new profile, go to a dualradius or grind off a little steel underneath your toes. 

A negative pitch actually moves the balance point forward towards the toe. I know it's not recommended, but I was having some issues with being too much on my toes, so gave it a shot, and it did what I hoped it would. The only thing that's giving me pause is I'm losing a bit of stability and bite in the heel area, so this whole exercise is me trying to figure out what the best way to teak things is in order to see if I can have it all so to speak.

In order to do this, I'm trying to find out when they pitch a skate, how far do they move the balance point/glide edge. Google says 5mm, but I'm not sure if that's accurate, because the internet being the internet. I'm also trying to find out how the glide edge's size changes with a change in radius. Best I could find is information on CAG profiling and how it corresponds to radius.

According to what I could find, a 25mm glide edge is similar to 6' radius, a 50mm glide edge is similar to a 11' radius, and a 65mm glide edge is similar to 14' radius. So if I do the math on this, the glide edge on a 13’ radius would be around 60mm. But I'm not sure if this is accurate either.

I'm hoping if I can get a confirmation on these numbers or the the actual numbers if these numbers are incorrect, I can do the math to determine how I want to proceed.  

Edited September 7, 2019 by puckpilot

[mojo122 535]

4 hours ago, puckpilot said:

In order to do this, I'm trying to find out when they pitch a skate, how far do they move the balance point/glide edge. Google says 5mm, but I'm not sure if that's accurate, because the internet being the internet. I'm also trying to find out how the glide edge's size changes with a change in radius. Best I could find is information on CAG profiling and how it corresponds to radius.

According to what I could find, a 25mm glide edge is similar to 6' radius, a 50mm glide edge is similar to a 11' radius, and a 65mm glide edge is similar to 14' radius. So if I do the math on this, the glide edge on a 13’ radius would be around 60mm. But I'm not sure if this is accurate either.

I'm hoping if I can get a confirmation on these numbers or the the actual numbers if these numbers are incorrect, I can do the math to determine how I want to proceed.  

Not really sure I have the right answers for you.  CAGONE bases their profiling recommendations on runner size.  I skate in 254mm runners so going by CAGONE the longest flat spot for 254's would be 40mm.  I tried ProSharp's system and out of the ones I tried I liked the triple and quad profiles, but in the end went back to a 35/65 done on a Pro Skate Balance machine.  I've been told that a 35/65 correlates to a 13.5' radius.  Using that information other glide spots should come out to this:

60mm = 13'

50mm = 12'

40mm = 11'

30mm = 10'

20mm = 9'

[hockeydad3 51]

I dont´t think that there is a linear correlation between the radius of your profile and the lenght of the glidesurface. And I think that you don´t have a definite lenght of the glidesurface with a single-radius-profile. The lenght of the glidesurface will depend on the hardness of the ice, the weight of the skater and the depth of the cut(ROH/FBV).

If going to a shallower profile with neutral pitch will give you a better glidesurface in the middle and the heelarea and too much steel underneath your toearea, why don´t you remove the steel underneath your toearea? That is the principle of a dual/multi-profile.

If you move the deepest point of the circle of the profile towards your toes your weight will be shiftet towards your heel(negative pitch), this will decrease your stability. If you are then  going to a more shallower profile the effect of the negative pitching will be reduced and you will have more steel underneath your toearea.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

This goes for all profiles on any skate. If your not balanced in your boot and it doesnt fit really well to start all this pitch and blade contact really means zero when it comes to the best performance.  

I used to be of the thougt a profile cam solve any issue. After spending this summer really researching and working with many pros again I have found proper boot fit and set up is far more important than a crazy profile set up. 

The issue I see the most is people reallllly want a specific boot and so on and its bot the correct fit. 

[puckpilot 312]

7 hours ago, hockeydad3 said:

I dont´t think that there is a linear correlation between the radius of your profile and the lenght of the glidesurface. And I think that you don´t have a definite lenght of the glidesurface with a single-radius-profile. The lenght of the glidesurface will depend on the hardness of the ice, the weight of the skater and the depth of the cut(ROH/FBV).

From everything I've read there is a correlation. Here's a couple of links from Sparx and Wissota, two sharpening machine manufacturers, that directly say this. Flatter radius equals more blade on the ice. So, I'm assuming they're a reliable source. 

https://blogs.sparxhockey.com/3-simple-experiments-all-hockey-players-ought-to-consider

https://wissota.com/skate-blade-profile-rocker-explained/

 

Quote

If going to a shallower profile with neutral pitch will give you a better glidesurface in the middle and the heelarea and too much steel underneath your toearea, why don´t you remove the steel underneath your toearea? That is the principle of a dual/multi-profile.

 

If you move the deepest point of the circle of the profile towards your toes your weight will be shiftet towards your heel(negative pitch), this will decrease your stability. If you are then  going to a more shallower profile the effect of the negative pitching will be reduced and you will have more steel underneath your toearea.

Sorry, I think there's a misunderstanding here. The neutral pitch profile doesn't give me enough blade under the toe area. That's why I went with a negative pitch. It moves the glide surface forward. But then, I lose some stability in the heel. It's not a deal breaker, but I'm trying to figure out if I can mitigate things with a tweak in pitch and radius.

5 hours ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

This goes for all profiles on any skate. If your not balanced in your boot and it doesnt fit really well to start all this pitch and blade contact really means zero when it comes to the best performance.  

I used to be of the thougt a profile cam solve any issue. After spending this summer really researching and working with many pros again I have found proper boot fit and set up is far more important than a crazy profile set up. 

The issue I see the most is people reallllly want a specific boot and so on and its bot the correct fit. 

You're absolutely correct, but I'm pretty confident that I'm in the right boot. Or rather the best retail boot for me that does't involve custom skates. It's not perfect, but in terms of length, width, and heel lock it's right. I have small feet but they have adult girth, so I have some volume issues.

I'll spare you the whole drawn out story, but basically, when I was buying skates, I went to a shop, got properly measured, and I tried every line that was out at that time. I narrowed the choices in fit down to two skates, the Nexus and the Supreme, each with pros and cons. I currently own both those skates, and found the best choice is the Supremes, which I've since tweaked with mods so volume is no longer an issue. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by puckpilot

[hockeydad3 51]

Of course there is a correlation between glidesurface and profileradius but i don´t think its linear.

A single radius profile does not have a definite glidesurface like a CAG-profile. The glidesurface of a single radius profile is round an the glidesurface of a CAG profile is flat. If you lean your weight forward the gliding surface of a single radius profile moves toward your toes and vice versa like in a rocking chair. With pichting of a single radius profile you are moving the deepest point of the rocker forward and backward with the glidesurface having the tendency to move in the other direction.

If done correctly on a new runner a 13´ single radius profile should give you more steel underneath your toes than the standard profiles out of the box. A negative pitch will lift the toearea away from the ice.

[puckpilot 312]

55 minutes ago, hockeydad3 said:

Of course there is a correlation between glidesurface and profileradius but i don´t think its linear.

A single radius profile does not have a definite glidesurface like a CAG-profile. The glidesurface of a single radius profile is round an the glidesurface of a CAG profile is flat. If you lean your weight forward the gliding surface of a single radius profile moves toward your toes and vice versa like in a rocking chair. With pichting of a single radius profile you are moving the deepest point of the rocker forward and backward with the glidesurface having the tendency to move in the other direction.

I'm not sure that's how it works. Unless, we're each interpreting the same information in two different ways, everything I've found tends to support the way I'm thinking of things.  When I was doing my research a while back, I found this video, which I found very helpful and it seems to confirm what I'm thinking, too. 

55 minutes ago, hockeydad3 said:

If done correctly on a new runner a 13´ single radius profile should give you more steel underneath your toes than the standard profiles out of the box. A negative pitch will lift the toearea away from the ice.

Sure, it should in theory, but for me, it doesn't. Hence why I've been experimenting. 

[stick9 890]

7 hours ago, hockeydad3 said:

Of course there is a correlation between glidesurface and profileradius but i don´t think its linear.

A single radius profile does not have a definite glidesurface like a CAG-profile. The glidesurface of a single radius profile is round an the glidesurface of a CAG profile is flat. If you lean your weight forward the gliding surface of a single radius profile moves toward your toes and vice versa like in a rocking chair. With pichting of a single radius profile you are moving the deepest point of the rocker forward and backward with the glidesurface having the tendency to move in the other direction.

If done correctly on a new runner a 13´ single radius profile should give you more steel underneath your toes than the standard profiles out of the box. A negative pitch will lift the toearea away from the ice.

I think you've been given some bad Intel.

There is a absolutely a glide surface (aka flat) on a single radius. That flat, let's call it a flat for ease of discussion, will increase or decrease depending on runner size. So it's there and it's defined by those factors, radius and runner length. The CAG as I understand it adds a defined flat on top of the flat that's already there. The beauty is you can put that flat wherever you want unlike the flat from your radius.

Sounds to me like the OP is looking for the benefits of a combo radius without getting one. More flat and better agility without losing stability, that's a combo. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by stick9

[hockeydad3 51]

3 hours ago, stick9 said:

There is a absolutely a glide surface (aka flat) on a single radius.

Yes, it`s the part of the radius-profile touching and sinking into the ice.

 

3 hours ago, stick9 said:

That flat, let's call it a flat for ease of discussion, will increase or decrease depending on runner size.

No, this length depends on the radius of the profile, the weight of the skater, the temperature of the ice and the depth of the grinding-hollow(ROH/FBV).

The lenght of the gliding-part of the runner, which will get the single-radius-profile, changes by the runner-size because it´s 60% of the runner-length.

The gliding-surface is shorter than the gliding-part unless you have an extreme big radius-profile which is semiflat.

3 hours ago, stick9 said:

The CAG as I understand it adds a defined flat on top of the flat that's already there.

Yes and no, it adds a defined flat on the bottom of the radius of the gliding-part of the runner.

3 hours ago, stick9 said:

Sounds to me like the OP is looking for the benefits of a combo radius without getting one.

I think the same.

 

Here some additional info: https://www.noicingsports.com/skate-1

[stick9 890]

Yeah, I'm good with the additional info, thanks anyway.