Has anyone tried the Quad 0.5 profile?

[Beflar 53]

Has anyone tried the Quad 0.5 profile?

 

Backstory:  So I went on YouTube to do some research on Quad profiles and found the channel Hockey Tutorial who talks about it and in the end  he said the best for him was the Quad 0.5 which is a 8-10-12-14 profile.  So me coming from an 11' I figured this would be a good place to start.  yet no one here has a review.  Apparently the Quad 0.5 does not come standard with the machine.  As far as I can tell it is a $88 part so no idea why shops don't have it but that is another story/question...

Edited December 28, 2019 by Beflar

[start_today 770]

Check out the discussion in the ProSharp Project Section. Lots of reviews and discussion on people dialing in various quad profile radiuses (radii?). 

http://modsquadhockey.com/forums/forum/191-the-prosharp-project/

And, if you search “quad” in the equipment forum, you get a lot of returns. Definitely a ton of info and discussion on this board about it. 

[psulion22 402]

21 hours ago, Beflar said:

Has anyone tried the Quad 0.5 profile?

 

Backstory:  So I went on YouTube to do some research on Quad profiles and found the channel Hockey Tutorial who talks about it and in the end  he said the best for him was the Quad 0.5 which is a 8-10-12-14 profile.  So me coming from an 11' I figured this would be a good place to start.  yet no one here has a review.  Apparently the Quad 0.5 does not come standard with the machine.  As far as I can tell it is a $88 part so no idea why shops don't have it but that is another story/question...

Depending on your skate (well, steel) size and weight, plus skating style and position, you could probably start with a Quad 1 or even Quad 2 before going all the way to Quad .5. There is a LTR on people using different ProSharp profiles on here. You might want to check that out first. 

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

11 hours ago, psulion22 said:

Depending on your skate (well, steel) size and weight, plus skating style and position, you could probably start with a Quad 1 or even Quad 2 before going all the way to Quad .5. There is a LTR on people using different ProSharp profiles on here. You might want to check that out first. 

Going t have to disagree with you on this one. Seeing as I takes the least amount of steel off and is closest to the profile study done on most effective profile I would highly recommend the .5 ws a starter. 

0 and 1 when done properly take away sooooo much steel  and pitch it beyond what it should be based on another study done on blade pitch   

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

14 hours ago, pgeorgan said:

You can navigate to the ProSharp forum, but oddly none of the reviewers really talk about their skate size, weight, how they tie their skates, etc... It's really all over the place. 

Whatever you go with will end up being subjective, so just go with something flatter and work your way to rounder (like Quad, 2, 1, 0, etc...). You'll lose a lot of steel going in the opposite direction. 

All of the skaters who are doing the testing are skating in profiles within their skate size range.  Once I get the newer triples and quads from PS, it'll be even more specific.  After the testing is complete, I talk to them about what would happen if they go out of the size range and what to expect.

2 hours ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

0 and 1 when done properly take away sooooo much steel  and pitch it beyond what it should be based on another study done on blade pitch   

PS didn't send me the .5 because it's not a part of their testing protocol; assuming because it doesn't fit in the 0/1/2 step-up.

I have a few people who have come to me saying that they've been getting triples and quads with additional pitch, which at that point is ridiculous.  All of the testers have gotten it done standard.

[flip12 714]

3 hours ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

Going t have to disagree with you on this one. Seeing as I takes the least amount of steel off and is closest to the profile study done on most effective profile I would highly recommend the .5 ws a starter. 

0 and 1 when done properly take away sooooo much steel  and pitch it beyond what it should be based on another study done on blade pitch   

Can you link to these studies?

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

24 minutes ago, pgeorgan said:

Point being, ProSharp's own skate range recommendation is actually pretty wide:  https://www.prosharp.eu/pub_docs/files/profile_template_list_2018-19_new.pdf

Eg, their Quad 1 recommendation is Size 9-10 but as you can see, can be put on a 254 holder, which can be found on a junior 5 1/2 skate. 

The reviews were somewhat helpful to read, but I couldn't pin down a profile without actually skating on it, and one I went with ended up being different from what I would've chosen based on reviews. 

Right, and I know that.  But for the testing, we have been sticking to the recommendations as much as we can.  

We are giving you the option to skate on several profiles and rating them.  What works for one of the reviewers isn't going to work with you - they are reviewing their experiences.  

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

41 minutes ago, flip12 said:

Can you link to these studies?

https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2011/12/researcher-works-with-nhl-veterans-to-improve-the-hockey-skate/

 

Not sure on the website where it is. Mike Mcgurk did the pitch study and the profile one I am not sure whos thesis it was. I did the sharpening for the Pitch Thesis

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

39 minutes ago, JR Boucicaut said:

Right, and I know that.  But for the testing, we have been sticking to the recommendations as much as we can.  

We are giving you the option to skate on several profiles and rating them.  What works for one of the reviewers isn't going to work with you - they are reviewing their experiences.  

Just because someone says it feels good does not mean in actual fact they are skating better or more efficient.

Hence, what we found in the pitch Study done. 

Ironically, similar happened in the profile study that showed the best performance was achieved at duals and they were 9-10 and 9.5 10.5 all other profiles were slower and less agile.

They were 7-13 and 11 foot all with I believe a slight forward pitch if I recall correctly.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

4 minutes ago, pgeorgan said:

I can't find the actual study from this link. 

https://brocku.ca/search/?s=sharpening#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=sharpening&gsc.page=1

 

Try searching in the research section.........

https://brocku.ca/applied-health-sciences/kinesiology/faculty-research/faculty-directory/kelly-l-lockwood-phd/#1495988343308-80fccfb2-7cbd2bb4-a010bd9b-76300f7d-2be520a1-a41b

 

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by oldtrainerguy28

[VegasHockey 1280]

4 hours ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

Going t have to disagree with you on this one. Seeing as I takes the least amount of steel off and is closest to the profile study done on most effective profile I would highly recommend the .5 ws a starter. 

0 and 1 when done properly take away sooooo much steel  and pitch it beyond what it should be based on another study done on blade pitch   

I'll throw my hat in the ring here as someone who does a ton of profiles and also tests them. Owning a full-service hockey shop gives me the ability to have access to try all different combinations of skates, steel, and profiles. Yes, I am lucky, but this also comes with negatives as well considering I change configurations so often I sometimes physically hurt myself s and it most certainly does take its toll on my skating as well by changing equipment so often. Such is life.....

BTW, when I say I hurt myself testing, I am dead serious. I hurt my back not too long ago, slipped a disc. I was testing an unreleased pair of skates with a very aggressive Quad 0 profile that was applied, it still had the full pitch in it and my back just couldn't handle the strain exerted with being so far forward. My back and core were constantly engaged fighting against the extremely stiff skate and the pitch of the profile and something had to give... Something did. My back. 

Anyway.

Quad 0.5 is a great overall profile and as mentioned, what I typically like to start players on if they are coming from steel that has not been profiled previously. It's also very good for new adult players, as the pitch is something they are not yet accustomed to and can throw off their skating. For the young kids, I prefer to put them on a single longer profile until they develop advanced edge control. This allows them to focus on skating and not worrying about balance as much.

Quad 2 would be my second go-to. The Quad 0/1 removes a very large amount of steel and also add quite a bit of pitch. Once you blend the toe properly many people feel too far forward and they get short choppy strides due to balance issues and such.

There are so many factors I think we can all agree that its truly impossible to say what is the best method and what to use for each player without seeing. Not to mention that some skates have a built-in forward pitch, like TRUE, and many other skates are very neutral. For example, skating on a Quad 0 using the "Pro Sharp recommendation) on my TRUE skates makes me feel unbalanced. When I do Quad 0/1 I tend to remove most of the pitch from the profile to preserve steel and also lessen the forward pitch. I can always add more pitch later but I cannot add steel back once it's been removed. 

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

26 minutes ago, SkateWorksPNW said:

I'll throw my hat in the ring here as someone who does a ton of profiles and also tests them. Owning a full-service hockey shop gives me the ability to have access to try all different combinations of skates, steel, and profiles. Yes, I am lucky, but this also comes with negatives as well considering I change configurations so often I sometimes physically hurt myself s and it most certainly does take its toll on my skating as well by changing equipment so often. Such is life.....

BTW, when I say I hurt myself testing, I am dead serious. I hurt my back not too long ago, slipped a disc. I was testing an unreleased pair of skates with a very aggressive Quad 0 profile that was applied, it still had the full pitch in it and my back just couldn't handle the strain exerted with being so far forward. My back and core were constantly engaged fighting against the extremely stiff skate and the pitch of the profile and something had to give... Something did. My back. 

Anyway.

Quad 0.5 is a great overall profile and as mentioned, what I typically like to start players on if they are coming from steel that has not been profiled previously. It's also very good for new adult players, as the pitch is something they are not yet accustomed to and can throw off their skating. For the young kids, I prefer to put them on a single longer profile until they develop advanced edge control. This allows them to focus on skating and not worrying about balance as much.

Quad 2 would be my second go-to. The Quad 0/1 removes a very large amount of steel and also add quite a bit of pitch. Once you blend the toe properly many people feel too far forward and they get short choppy strides due to balance issues and such.

There are so many factors I think we can all agree that its truly impossible to say what is the best method and what to use for each player without seeing. Not to mention that some skates have a built-in forward pitch, like TRUE, and many other skates are very neutral. For example, skating on a Quad 0 using the "Pro Sharp recommendation) on my TRUE skates makes me feel unbalanced. When I do Quad 0/1 I tend to remove most of the pitch from the profile to preserve steel and also lessen the forward pitch. I can always add more pitch later but I cannot add steel back once it's been removed. 

Excellent points!!! 

[psulion22 402]

5 hours ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

Going t have to disagree with you on this one. Seeing as I takes the least amount of steel off and is closest to the profile study done on most effective profile I would highly recommend the .5 ws a starter. 

0 and 1 when done properly take away sooooo much steel  and pitch it beyond what it should be based on another study done on blade pitch   

I'll cede to your expertise and research.  I had just assumed that Quad 0.5 was inbetween Quad 0 and Quad 1.  That's not the case (strange numbering on PS's part).  With 0.5's larger front radius and more neutral pitch, I definitely agree that it's probably the best starting point.

[Beflar 53]

7 hours ago, psulion22 said:

I'll cede to your expertise and research.  I had just assumed that Quad 0.5 was inbetween Quad 0 and Quad 1.  That's not the case (strange numbering on PS's part).  With 0.5's larger front radius and more neutral pitch, I definitely agree that it's probably the best starting point.

Ya the numbering system is strange for the 0.5.

Quad 0:      6-9-11-13

Quad 1:      6-9-12-15

Quad 2:      7-10-13-16

Quad 0.5:   8-10-12-14

So given my stats 9.5 size, 280 blade, 220 pounds Quad 1 is suggested, not sure what 0.5 is suggested for...  Skate on a 11' (use to be 13' back in the day) trying to work my way down in number but not to the point of falling(9' is to small for me) so the 0.5 looked perfect to me.

8 hours ago, SkateWorksPNW said:

I'll throw my hat in the ring here as someone who does a ton of profiles and also tests them. Owning a full-service hockey shop gives me the ability to have access to try all different combinations of skates, steel, and profiles. Yes, I am lucky, but this also comes with negatives as well considering I change configurations so often I sometimes physically hurt myself s and it most certainly does take its toll on my skating as well by changing equipment so often. Such is life.....

BTW, when I say I hurt myself testing, I am dead serious. I hurt my back not too long ago, slipped a disc. I was testing an unreleased pair of skates with a very aggressive Quad 0 profile that was applied, it still had the full pitch in it and my back just couldn't handle the strain exerted with being so far forward. My back and core were constantly engaged fighting against the extremely stiff skate and the pitch of the profile and something had to give... Something did. My back. 

Anyway.

Quad 0.5 is a great overall profile and as mentioned, what I typically like to start players on if they are coming from steel that has not been profiled previously. It's also very good for new adult players, as the pitch is something they are not yet accustomed to and can throw off their skating. For the young kids, I prefer to put them on a single longer profile until they develop advanced edge control. This allows them to focus on skating and not worrying about balance as much.

Quad 2 would be my second go-to. The Quad 0/1 removes a very large amount of steel and also add quite a bit of pitch. Once you blend the toe properly many people feel too far forward and they get short choppy strides due to balance issues and such.

There are so many factors I think we can all agree that its truly impossible to say what is the best method and what to use for each player without seeing. Not to mention that some skates have a built-in forward pitch, like TRUE, and many other skates are very neutral. For example, skating on a Quad 0 using the "Pro Sharp recommendation) on my TRUE skates makes me feel unbalanced. When I do Quad 0/1 I tend to remove most of the pitch from the profile to preserve steel and also lessen the forward pitch. I can always add more pitch later but I cannot add steel back once it's been removed. 

Great post.  Thank you.

[psulion22 402]

3 hours ago, Beflar said:

Ya the numbering system is strange for the 0.5.

Quad 0:      6-9-11-13

Quad 1:      6-9-12-15

Quad 2:      7-10-13-16

Quad 0.5:   8-10-12-14

So given my stats 9.5 size, 280 blade, 220 pounds Quad 1 is suggested, not sure what 0.5 is suggested for...  Skate on a 11' (use to be 13' back in the day) trying to work my way down in number but not to the point of falling(9' is to small for me) so the 0.5 looked perfect to me.

Great post.  Thank you.

Keep in mind that only a very small portion of the toe of the skate is that first radius.  So 6' or even 8' may sound small and like you'd fall over, it's not the part of the skate you're typically balancing on.  It's not the same as just getting a 6' or 8' or even 9' single radius.  But with what you're looking for 0.5 is definitely the way to go.  I have a Quad 1 and honestly I think the toe radius is too short (and I have 272 runners so it feels a little longer to me).  I'll be getting a Quad 0.5 on my nest set of steel for sure.  If I don't like it, I can always go to Quad 1.  With how much steel they take off the toe, you couldn't go from Quad 1 to 0.5.  There wouldn't be any blade left.

[xstartxtodayx 343]

disclaimer - I am in no way an expert, pretty far from it, but I did find mention of the Quad .5 while searching this site when I was researching profiles a few months ago.  I had originally tried a Quad 1 (that Pure Hokey recommended), it was nice but I felt it was too short in the front, felt I was tipping forwards a little too much, so that lead me to the Quad .5 which was my glass slipper. For the record, I'm in a 7.5 skate (263 blade I think), '9" and about 165-170lbs if any of that matters.  Again, as for the technical stuff I don't know much lol, just know this one happened to work well for me.

[VegasHockey 1280]

12 hours ago, Beflar said:

Ya the numbering system is strange for the 0.5.

Quad 0:      6-9-11-13

Quad 1:      6-9-12-15

Quad 2:      7-10-13-16

Quad 0.5:   8-10-12-14

So given my stats 9.5 size, 280 blade, 220 pounds Quad 1 is suggested, not sure what 0.5 is suggested for...  Skate on a 11' (use to be 13' back in the day) trying to work my way down in number but not to the point of falling(9' is to small for me) so the 0.5 looked perfect to me.

Great post.  Thank you.

Yeah, the numbering system actually sucks IMO. Too often I get people thinking the Q0.5 sits between the Q0 and Q1, which any normal thinking person would assume. lol

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

12 hours ago, Beflar said:

Ya the numbering system is strange for the 0.5.

Quad 0:      6-9-11-13

Quad 1:      6-9-12-15

Quad 2:      7-10-13-16

Quad 0.5:   8-10-12-14

So given my stats 9.5 size, 280 blade, 220 pounds Quad 1 is suggested, not sure what 0.5 is suggested for...  Skate on a 11' (use to be 13' back in the day) trying to work my way down in number but not to the point of falling(9' is to small for me) so the 0.5 looked perfect to me.

Great post.  Thank you.

In the studies mentioned above not that it was noted in the study, there was a discussion that any profile change greater than 2...IE 7-13 or in Quad anything over 8-10-12-14 a  .5 would be hard to feel as the gap would leave a flat spot. All profiles closer than 2 or less thee would be less likely a feeling of separation from one profile to the rest. It was also concluded that the 2 best being the 9.10 and the 9.5 10.5 would be similar to what is now the Quad .5. Hence, it would make perfect sense as to why a lot of people like it as it feels similar and actually is closest to the best performing in the study. Kind of a jacked combo between the 2 from the study.  I wonder who it was that came up with that .5 idea? Maybe Mr. ProSharp could tell us?? 

[VegasHockey 1280]

 

 

9

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

1 hour ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

In the studies mentioned above not that it was noted in the study, there was a discussion that any profile change greater than 2...IE 7-13 or in Quad anything over 8-10-12-14 a  .5 would be hard to feel as the gap would leave a flat spot. All profiles closer than 2 or less thee would be less likely a feeling of separation from one profile to the rest. It was also concluded that the 2 best being the 9.10 and the 9.5 10.5 would be similar to what is now the Quad .5. Hence, it would make perfect sense as to why a lot of people like it as it feels similar and actually is closest to the best performing in the study. Kind of a jacked combo between the 2 from the study.  I wonder who it was that came up with that .5 idea? Maybe Mr. ProSharp could tell us?? 

Funny you mention 9.5/10.5 as thats what is now standard on the TRUE Shift holder STEP steel and it feels almost exactly like a Quad 0.5.

[caveman27 208]

21 hours ago, SkateWorksPNW said:

I'll throw my hat in the ring here as someone who does a ton of profiles and also tests them. Owning a full-service hockey shop gives me the ability to have access to try all different combinations of skates, steel, and profiles. Yes, I am lucky, but this also comes with negatives as well considering I change configurations so often I sometimes physically hurt myself s and it most certainly does take its toll on my skating as well by changing equipment so often. Such is life.....

BTW, when I say I hurt myself testing, I am dead serious. I hurt my back not too long ago, slipped a disc. I was testing an unreleased pair of skates with a very aggressive Quad 0 profile that was applied, it still had the full pitch in it and my back just couldn't handle the strain exerted with being so far forward. My back and core were constantly engaged fighting against the extremely stiff skate and the pitch of the profile and something had to give... Something did. My back. 

Ever since my spinal fusion surgery, I always wear a weight lifting belt for back support when playing. It's nylon one with velcro, not a leather one with a metal buckle. 

[Beflar 53]

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 6:39 AM, oldtrainerguy28 said:

In the studies mentioned above not that it was noted in the study, there was a discussion that any profile change greater than 2...IE 7-13 or in Quad anything over 8-10-12-14 a  .5 would be hard to feel as the gap would leave a flat spot. All profiles closer than 2 or less thee would be less likely a feeling of separation from one profile to the rest. It was also concluded that the 2 best being the 9.10 and the 9.5 10.5 would be similar to what is now the Quad .5. Hence, it would make perfect sense as to why a lot of people like it as it feels similar and actually is closest to the best performing in the study. Kind of a jacked combo between the 2 from the study.  I wonder who it was that came up with that .5 idea? Maybe Mr. ProSharp could tell us?? 

I talked to the guys at Prosharp through YouTube and your right in your logic.  They said they made the Quad 0.5 because people in North America are use to a single profile, so the Quad 0.5 was made to be less jarring for the North Amercian players that has never tried Quad Profiles before.

[Leif 161]

I wonder how long a profile lasts when the blades are sharpened manually? Back when I used to have mine manually sharpened, I checked the blades prior to replacing them, and they were more like speed skates ie almost flat. Most other sharpeners down my way can’t even get even edges, never mind maintain the profile. 

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

10 hours ago, Beflar said:

I talked to the guys at Prosharp through YouTube and your right in your logic.  They said they made the Quad 0.5 because people in North America are use to a single profile, so the Quad 0.5 was made to be less jarring for the North Amercian players that has never tried Quad Profiles before.

As mentioned they made the .5 fornthe North American players. At the time I was working with an OHL team that used 9.5 10.5 and wanted to switch but didnt like the 0 or he 1. We asked for the .5 and they made us a template. That's how the .5 came about. 

[BenBreeg 493]

I know this is older but just reread this before my skate this morning.  I have only had Q0, on a pair of Supreme 7000 and now on Ribcores with the new holder.  I was told when I got them profiled that people who usually had some forward pitch would bring back Q0 and 1s to get the pitch taken out.

Anyway,  I was just skating and standing around trying to pay attention to my natural balance point and it is right in the middle of my foot, very natural.  I think with the Quad, you can get forward when you need to but I don’t feel like the skate is actively pushing me there.  Then the flatter backend provides stability.  The flat back was actually what I noticed right away and immediately reduced fatigue in the front of my calves, presumably due to trying to counter the skate pushing me on my heels.  The other thing that went away immediately was this arch pain I used to have for like the first 1/2 hour of skating.  I had always assumed it was the boot (this was with the 7000s) but the relief was instantaneous.

As for my skating, as OTG28 points out, what you think you are doing and what you are measured doing are often two different things.

[VegasHockey 1280]

3 hours ago, BenBreeg said:

I know this is older but just reread this before my skate this morning.  I have only had Q0, on a pair of Supreme 7000 and now on Ribcores with the new holder.  I was told when I got them profiled that people who usually had some forward pitch would bring back Q0 and 1s to get the pitch taken out.

Anyway,  I was just skating and standing around trying to pay attention to my natural balance point and it is right in the middle of my foot, very natural.  I think with the Quad, you can get forward when you need to but I don’t feel like the skate is actively pushing me there.  Then the flatter backend provides stability.  The flat back was actually what I noticed right away and immediately reduced fatigue in the front of my calves, presumably due to trying to counter the skate pushing me on my heels.  The other thing that went away immediately was this arch pain I used to have for like the first 1/2 hour of skating.  I had always assumed it was the boot (this was with the 7000s) but the relief was instantaneous.

As for my skating, as OTG28 points out, what you think you are doing and what you are measured doing are often two different things.

Unless the player specifically asks me for an aggressive forward lean I always profile neutral or add a minimal pitch. I also dont like grinding down the whole front of the blade on a Q0 or a Zuperior.