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

Bladetech Initial Thoughts

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, smcgreg said:

I'm curious about this too.  If we look at the mechanics of running, we know that increased spring stiffness can increase running performance (but possibly increase injury risk).  But skating isn't running.  If you have trained skating mechanics, then I can see this spring energy return mechanism possibly helping, but after skating for a while, wouldn't the body adapt to the new mechanical dyanamics and minimize the benefit?

Alternatively, the point I think you're getting at is the fact that just because the spring is loaded and releases, doesn't mean the timing of the release can contribute to increased speed.  Mechanics would need to be "tuned" to this effect presumably.  Further, I can see how mistiming of the spring release could be detrimental and contribute to decreased efficiencies. 

Somebody earlier compared them to spungs for ice.  When I skate on my sprungs, I feel like I'm skating in mud. 

I guess I'm a bit skeptical?  If there is data though, by all means, let's take a look!!! 🙂

Some food for thought... Visualize this.... Pretend (or actually do it - haha) you grabbed a 155 flex stick and fired 1000 pucks. Think of how your mechanics would be, how the body gets adjusted...etc..etc. Then think back to your typical flex, lets say 85 stick, and shoot 1000 pucks. Your mechanics, yes, may be slightly different with the different products. But in the end there are only 2 things firing that puck. 1) your muscles in your body, which are not changing, and 2) the whip of the stick, which is changing. Likely, the end result is a faster travelling puck with the 85 flex stick as it will benefit from the whip/lag action. This is not to say that 85 is better than 87 which is better than 89...etc..etc, but simply saying that one can definitely benefit from spring and whip technology. Millions of people already do. Whether its choosing hockey sticks, running shoes, golf clubs/shafts/balls... many sports... spring and flex is everywhere, and for good reason. Just something I thought might be of interest to help give examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeff Azzolin Bladetech said:

All good. Fire the questions away, thats what Im here for. I might take some time to reply, but I will get around to it.  So, I will agree that different skaters have different "gait" or "foot striking" timing and placements. I will also note that the same skater will alter their foot striking placements in different skating methods, forward, backwards, cross-overs...etc. The monitors are able to show exactly the force/pressure applied, and for the exact lengths of times in all areas to understand the strides of each skater. The amount of energy, again, can vary of the skater and the mechanics, but for example 10% of the input energy, which might be 40 pounds, which might come from a 200 pound skater accelerating and applying 400 pounds of force (F=MA) could easily be taken away from the knee joints and absorbed into the blades for potential energy. Some skaters were doing a lot more, getting close to 20% and some less, and then again, dependent on the several different drills we ran and the mechanics in each drill. In terms of point 1) any energy is beneficial, the energy being absorbed would have otherwise have been wasted anyways, so anything is a positive and for 2) all energy absorbed is released AS the skate is lifted, not before, not after, AS, as the force is removed, the energy is released. I think what you are trying to say is, some skating mechanics on certain drills would result on the toe pushoff and the vector of the foot/shin to be in a much more horizontal orientation than in other drills, and hence, the spring load vector release of energy will be more beneficial in some scenarios than others, to that, completely agree, yes. The 5% was an average, and the sample size was sufficient to prove/publish the data based on the amount of impact/benefit observed.

Not sure if I should be offended you replied to everybody but me....

Care to point us to these?  Honestly, you can get anything published .... somewhere.

Share this post


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

Cool, thanks for the replies!  All over the map I mean you can have a heavier, stronger skater in a size 7 skate with the same steel and they are going to compress the steel more and get more out of the stored energy effect.  A lighter, weaker skater with the same skate and steel won't compress it as much and won't get as much if any benefit.  And I would think the flex would change and the steel was sharpened and reduced in thickness.  

Ok I get it, thanks for clarifying, that's easier to understand. Yes the steel will only deflect a certain distance. Over that travel length, only a certain amount of force can be stored. So some players might take full advantage, and others partial, correct, which is all linked back to their force output, which is related back to F=MA and their mass and acceleration. So 2 players both size 7 and 140 pounds could get different amounts of benefit if one is a higher skill level / calibre player and hence has the ability to accelerate faster and apply more force, but both are getting benefits, similar to running on grass, all runners are better off there than asphalt, but some people will enjoy the reduced joint stress more than others. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jeff Azzolin Bladetech said:

Some food for thought... Visualize this.... Pretend (or actually do it - haha) you grabbed a 155 flex stick and fired 1000 pucks. Think of how your mechanics would be, how the body gets adjusted...etc..etc. Then think back to your typical flex, lets say 85 stick, and shoot 1000 pucks. Your mechanics, yes, may be slightly different with the different products. But in the end there are only 2 things firing that puck. 1) your muscles in your body, which are not changing, and 2) the whip of the stick, which is changing. Likely, the end result is a faster travelling puck with the 85 flex stick as it will benefit from the whip/lag action. This is not to say that 85 is better than 87 which is better than 89...etc..etc, but simply saying that one can definitely benefit from spring and whip technology. Millions of people already do. Whether its choosing hockey sticks, running shoes, golf clubs/shafts/balls... many sports... spring and flex is everywhere, and for good reason. Just something I thought might be of interest to help give examples.

True... to some extent.  But skating is akin to a hybrid between shooting and running.  There are lots of degrees of freedom in shooting, but the DoF that relate to puck velocity and accuracy are fairly limited, so, stick flex has a clear and distinctive effect.  On the other end of the scale would be running where the DoF are greater, and in particular, those that dictate running velocity are more variable and numerous than shooting the puck.  One could even argue that skating DoF are even more numerous than running.  Probably more importantly, the "signal to noise ratio" in skating is lower than running.  Sorry to mix metaphors, but what I mean by that is, running can be described fairly simply by drawing the analogy to a pogo stick.  Skating?  not so much.  One can skate pretty fast simply by "punching the ice" and having horrible mechanics (I won't use an example that would be unflattering) or one can skate fast by having a very efficient stride (e.g Quinn Hughes).  You really don't those kind of discrepancies in running, where the spring-mass model is more descriptive.

So,... my point is, skating stride is a very complicated thing and it's hard for me to blindly accept that a mechanical intervention will have a huge effect.  Of course, the clap skate is an example of a substantial effect as a result of mechanical intervention, but the amount of time a hockey player spends going in one direction at top speed is almost infinitesimal in the grand scheme of the various stride manipulations that are used..... ugghh... I'm droning.... sorry.  My point is this, shooting flex is a nice analogy, but not quite on the mark.  Too simplistic.  Sorry for the stream of consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, smcgreg said:

Not sure if I should be offended you replied to everybody but me....

Care to point us to these?  Honestly, you can get anything published .... somewhere.

I literally did reply... like right before you posted this.... Also, I am trying to answer everyone equally... sorry the threads get all a bit mixed up with the way the replies work. So no need to be offended. Secondly, looking back, some of your comments were related to inline skates, so perhaps those ones I didnt comment on, or if there is no specific question I just left it.

As you can imagine, I am doing my best to spread some education and answer direct questions, but I also have plenty of daily meetings and tasks so I may not get to all questions/comments, or if/when I do get to them all, it may take some time.  If I do miss something, feel free to politely remind me.

In relation to your other comment, please take a look on our website, there is plenty of information there including some of the testing results and procedures from one of the 3rd parties we have used, under the Flex Force Advantage tab. It will show some info on the testing processes and results and is a small example of the things we do for validation. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jeff Azzolin Bladetech said:

I literally did reply... like right before you posted this.... Also, I am trying to answer everyone equally... sorry the threads get all a bit mixed up with the way the replies work. So no need to be offended. Secondly, looking back, some of your comments were related to inline skates, so perhaps those ones I didnt comment on, or if there is no specific question I just left it.

As you can imagine, I am doing my best to spread some education and answer direct questions, but I also have plenty of daily meetings and tasks so I may not get to all questions/comments, or if/when I do get to them all, it may take some time.  If I do miss something, feel free to politely remind me.

In relation to your other comment, please take a look on our website, there is plenty of information there including some of the testing results and procedures from one of the 3rd parties we have used, under the Flex Force Advantage tab. It will show some info on the testing processes and results and is a small example of the things we do for validation. Enjoy!

haha... yeah....  Seriously, there were so many responses (kudos to you) and the only one missing was me.  No worries.   I'll try and get over to your site to check things out, but an easier way to convince skeptics is to put the references in their face.  As scientist, it's the main form of communication and the best weapon in an argument, so, if you have 'em, throw them around.... 😉 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jeff Azzolin Bladetech said:

Secured at the back, constrained in the middle, free float at the front 🙂

Have you guys experienced any premature breakdown of the parts in the rear towers from blade movement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, smcgreg said:

haha... yeah....  Seriously, there were so many responses (kudos to you) and the only one missing was me.  No worries.   I'll try and get over to your site to check things out, but an easier way to convince skeptics is to put the references in their face.  As scientist, it's the main form of communication and the best weapon in an argument, so, if you have 'em, throw them around.... 😉 

I will try to get to everything, slowly but surely. Along with Facebook, twitter, instagram, 6 email accounts, 1 phone, + multiple other daily things to manage, I guess I can try adding this to a daily routine. Just dont feel bad if it takes me some time to reply is all I am saying, there's is lots on the go here. I would encourage people to familiarize themselves with the site first. If you ask any business owner, they always have 1000 things on the go and constantly burning the candle at both ends. Hence, educating yourself and reading the site and investing 10 minutes of your own time can usually answer a whack of your questions anyways and then save only the detailed questions for clarification. In terms of the skeptics, there are always those people and there always will be. I have many NHL / pro players loving our product and have been using it for years, so regardless what a skeptic or keyboard-warrior might say, I sleep easy every night and take a lot of comments with a grain of salt. Bug me when you need to - Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, smcgreg said:

True... to some extent.  But skating is akin to a hybrid between shooting and running.  There are lots of degrees of freedom in shooting, but the DoF that relate to puck velocity and accuracy are fairly limited, so, stick flex has a clear and distinctive effect.  On the other end of the scale would be running where the DoF are greater, and in particular, those that dictate running velocity are more variable and numerous than shooting the puck.  One could even argue that skating DoF are even more numerous than running.  Probably more importantly, the "signal to noise ratio" in skating is lower than running.  Sorry to mix metaphors, but what I mean by that is, running can be described fairly simply by drawing the analogy to a pogo stick.  Skating?  not so much.  One can skate pretty fast simply by "punching the ice" and having horrible mechanics (I won't use an example that would be unflattering) or one can skate fast by having a very efficient stride (e.g Quinn Hughes).  You really don't those kind of discrepancies in running, where the spring-mass model is more descriptive.

So,... my point is, skating stride is a very complicated thing and it's hard for me to blindly accept that a mechanical intervention will have a huge effect.  Of course, the clap skate is an example of a substantial effect as a result of mechanical intervention, but the amount of time a hockey player spends going in one direction at top speed is almost infinitesimal in the grand scheme of the various stride manipulations that are used..... ugghh... I'm droning.... sorry.  My point is this, shooting flex is a nice analogy, but not quite on the mark.  Too simplistic.  Sorry for the stream of consciousness.

Again, everyone has their own opinions. There's those who try/test something and form an educated opinion and then there are those who visualize/guess/assume and form an opinion. If you havent tried it, I can certainly assure you one thing, you are lacking data points and experiences that very well might change your opinion. So hard to put down or raise up any product/technology without actually having used it. A major pet peeve is people who barely try anything but seem to have an opinion of everything.. its the internet age of things I guess.  So what I can say is a few things. If the clap skate had such a huge impact on the sport, and if Bladetech uses the exact same physics and principles, along with other physics and principles more related to spring technology, and if you see golf clubs, balls, shafts, running shoes, tennis rackets, and so many sports incorporating flex points, spring points, and that type of similar technology and physics, than clearly all of us are either right, or all of us are wrong. You can't really make an argument picking and choosing when physics applies and when it doesnt. Our product is geared more to the acceleration/agility regime, not so much top top speed. Clap skate is built around the linear impulse of momentum equation and maximizing time and surface area to maximize power transfer and becomes helpful at all speeds, although we operate on that too, we also operate on spring loaded mechanics. And when the strides are the most short and choppy, or "punching the ice" is where the most energy is wasted in the knees, and where our spring-technology benefits the most. And fortunately, this is where the game of hockey is played, in short starts and stops. Food for thought, no clap skate maker, no shoe maker, no golf club maker is going backwards in time and removing these "springs", they are in fact constantly improving and re-tuning them. Hope that helps!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever tinkered with the spring rates allowing less flex for heavier players and more flex for lighter players or is there not any advantage to that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SkateWorksPNW said:

Have you ever tinkered with the spring rates allowing less flex for heavier players and more flex for lighter players or is there not any advantage to that? 

Only a very long time ago when initially starting up and analyzing things and doing proof of concept yes, we did multiple tests with all kinds of spring ratings and deflection limits/amounts. But now the processes are kind of set in to what we found was a great combination for most skaters. Yes, some players might flex the blade 1mm, some 0.75mm, some 1.25mm, and it is defendant on their weight AND their acceleration, but all are benefiting, and not at a crazy price in comparison to OEM priced steel.  It would be a large cost to have various different spring ratings on the same model/size, as we already have 100+ SKUs now.  Perhaps down the road it can be re-visited and may prove beneficial, but for now, its not in the near-future plans (next 12months). But yes we did it a long time ago, yes its buried in the archives and sometimes is considered and comes up, but it wont be implemented for a while - Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jeff Azzolin Bladetech said:

Only a very long time ago when initially starting up and analyzing things and doing proof of concept yes, we did multiple tests with all kinds of spring ratings and deflection limits/amounts. But now the processes are kind of set in to what we found was a great combination for most skaters. Yes, some players might flex the blade 1mm, some 0.75mm, some 1.25mm, and it is defendant on their weight AND their acceleration, but all are benefiting, and not at a crazy price in comparison to OEM priced steel.  It would be a large cost to have various different spring ratings on the same model/size, as we already have 100+ SKUs now.  Perhaps down the road it can be re-visited and may prove beneficial, but for now, its not in the near-future plans (next 12months). But yes we did it a long time ago, yes its buried in the archives and sometimes is considered and comes up, but it wont be implemented for a while - Cheers!

Very cool. Thanks for sharing.

FYI: We have a few coaches using BT steel on TRUE skates with the first generation TRUE holders and they have been waiting to change to their new skates hoping that you release steel for the SHIFT holder. Fingers crossed 😉 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jeff Azzolin Bladetech said:

 And when the strides are the most short and choppy, or "punching the ice" is where the most energy is wasted in the knees, and where our spring-technology benefits the most. And fortunately, this is where the game of hockey is played, in short starts and stops. Food for thought, no clap skate maker, no shoe maker, no golf club maker is going backwards in time and removing these "springs", they are in fact constantly improving and re-tuning them. Hope that helps!

This makes a lot of sense and was something I was missing.  Definitely can see how the loading can happen on acceleration when you are on the front of your skates versus steady state striding.

As for skeptics and keyboard warriors, many people are curious, some are engineers, some like myself are in product and have a natural curiosity so these types of questions immediately come to mind.  This is especially true in a market where equipment prices are through the roof and it is hard to tell if there is actually any appreciable increase in performance commensurate with the increase in price. No offense, just the nature of the discussion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were a big fan of the Massive Blade until they became unavailable. Not so much of LS5 or STEP. Would love to try the Bladetech but the cost appears to be prohibitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 218hockey said:

We were a big fan of the Massive Blade until they became unavailable. Not so much of LS5 or STEP. Would love to try the Bladetech but the cost appears to be prohibitive.

Hey 218, appreciate the feedback. Some questions/comments would be: What constitutes prohibitive? 100 for blades? 200 for helmets? 250 for sticks? 750 for skates? I am not sure the answer because every customer will have their own "line". I think the more important question is "bang for the buck", not just "what does it cost". Look at the cost, and then look at the value in the product you are getting.

Usually in life, you get what you pay for, and a Ferrari costs more than Toyota. Sure, whether or not you need to have a Ferrari and pay the delta in price for the delta in quality/performance is subjective no doubt to each customer, but they are kind of like totally different products and comparing them isnt really doing either product justice. On one hand they are both cars. On the other hand, they are very different cars.

Edited by Jeff Azzolin Bladetech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BenBreeg said:

This makes a lot of sense and was something I was missing.  Definitely can see how the loading can happen on acceleration when you are on the front of your skates versus steady state striding.

As for skeptics and keyboard warriors, many people are curious, some are engineers, some like myself are in product and have a natural curiosity so these types of questions immediately come to mind.  This is especially true in a market where equipment prices are through the roof and it is hard to tell if there is actually any appreciable increase in performance commensurate with the increase in price. No offense, just the nature of the discussion.

None taken - Im just casually saying that perhaps taking a view from a different lens and looking at some facts may yield different thoughts. 1 - We dont have NHL players out of fluke, they choose to use because they love it, so the product most be good enough for them to use. 2 - Most people, rec or pro, who give it a solid try (a few hours) do fall in love with it. Yes, sure, absolutely, it is different. But different is not always bad, or a gimmick. And sometimes different needs a chance to prove itself. Look at carbon fiber and the hesitancy to adopt it in sticks... and now look 10 years down the road... 3 - The marketing is not far-fetched, we are outlining 5% improvements based on the same science/physics/principles successfully implemented in adjacent industries that have proven to break records and recorded large improvements for decades now. 4 - We chose to sit at a price delta of +20% ish or +20 bucks ish for the added value, not a bad proposition (subjective - haha).  5 - We started a company by inventing something, then we got USPTO and CIPO issued patents, then we performed lab testing and iterations, and yes, now have NHL players using it and winning Stanley Cups with it. Not many other companies have taken this technical and innovative path. And certainly, no other steel company took anything close to this path.  So with this in mind and finally getting to my point now, when for example, you said "need numbers" or others insinuate that test results can be made up by anybody...etc, I would be tempted to say, there are quite a few numbers and processes listed on our site, and if one took the time to read the site in its entirety, they might very well be impressed with the level of information presented and the path we took. Perhaps sure, we need to invest more time or thought into the website and/or make things more clear, but we can never satisfy everyone, our resources are limited, so we try and outline what we feel is an acceptable amount of information. If really tempted, I could go a step further and note that the big OEMs don't tend to publish much/any of their ''numbers'' or test results; they usually just launch a new product, make commercials with paid athletes, and the masses just blindly accept. So perhaps what Bladetech has done is levels ahead and pound-for-pound we are punching well above our weight for a company that is a fraction's-fraction's-fraction of the OEMs we are compared to. Or maybe Im totally out of it. Not sure. Hahah. But either way, its great to connect with you and the others here and answer what I can to help educate. At the end of the day, we are shooting the shit on hockey, there are much worse things I can think of. 😉 Cheers!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 218hockey said:

We were a big fan of the Massive Blade until they became unavailable. Not so much of LS5 or STEP. Would love to try the Bladetech but the cost appears to be prohibitive.

I'd love to try it as well. 

I'm not sure where you are, but for me in Canada, the price seems like it's about a 10$ difference between this and mid-level Byonic. 

What are your return policies like, if there is one at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Azzolin Bladetech said:

None taken - Im just casually saying that perhaps taking a view from a different lens and looking at some facts may yield different thoughts. 1 - We dont have NHL players out of fluke, they choose to use because they love it, so the product most be good enough for them to use. 2 - Most people, rec or pro, who give it a solid try (a few hours) do fall in love with it. Yes, sure, absolutely, it is different. But different is not always bad, or a gimmick. And sometimes different needs a chance to prove itself. Look at carbon fiber and the hesitancy to adopt it in sticks... and now look 10 years down the road... 3 - The marketing is not far-fetched, we are outlining 5% improvements based on the same science/physics/principles successfully implemented in adjacent industries that have proven to break records and recorded large improvements for decades now. 4 - We chose to sit at a price delta of +20% ish or +20 bucks ish for the added value, not a bad proposition (subjective - haha).  5 - We started a company by inventing something, then we got USPTO and CIPO issued patents, then we performed lab testing and iterations, and yes, now have NHL players using it and winning Stanley Cups with it. Not many other companies have taken this technical and innovative path. And certainly, no other steel company took anything close to this path.  So with this in mind and finally getting to my point now, when for example, you said "need numbers" or others insinuate that test results can be made up by anybody...etc, I would be tempted to say, there are quite a few numbers and processes listed on our site, and if one took the time to read the site in its entirety, they might very well be impressed with the level of information presented and the path we took. Perhaps sure, we need to invest more time or thought into the website and/or make things more clear, but we can never satisfy everyone, our resources are limited, so we try and outline what we feel is an acceptable amount of information. If really tempted, I could go a step further and note that the big OEMs don't tend to publish much/any of their ''numbers'' or test results; they usually just launch a new product, make commercials with paid athletes, and the masses just blindly accept. So perhaps what Bladetech has done is levels ahead and pound-for-pound we are punching well above our weight for a company that is a fraction's-fraction's-fraction of the OEMs we are compared to. Or maybe Im totally out of it. Not sure. Hahah. But either way, its great to connect with you and the others here and answer what I can to help educate. At the end of the day, we are shooting the shit on hockey, there are much worse things I can think of. 😉 Cheers!

All good, that's the story I think a lot of people are interested in.  This is a gear geek site with some here pretty well-versed in the ins and outs, so talking about the minutiae is par for the course (some threads get into the 100+ page range).

As for OEMs, yeah, but that isn't unique to hockey, established companies always have that advantage, that is why a brand in and of itself has value.  Newer entrants always have the challenge of crossing the chasm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 218hockey said:

We were a big fan of the Massive Blade until they became unavailable. Not so much of LS5 or STEP. Would love to try the Bladetech but the cost appears to be prohibitive.

LS5 and Step are roughly the same price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jeff Azzolin Bladetech said:

Hey 218, appreciate the feedback. Some questions/comments would be: What constitutes prohibitive?

I guess we should determine the actual price of the Bladetech product. My understanding is that the black Bladetech is $149?

We were buying the black Massive Blade for U.S. $94 or the LS5 for $109. And of course we would always have two sets.

I don't care about Step as they are not available for the Edge holder, didn't like them anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 218hockey said:

I guess we should determine the actual price of the Bladetech product. My understanding is that the black Bladetech is $149?

We were buying the black Massive Blade for U.S. $94 or the LS5 for $109. And of course we would always have two sets.

I don't care about Step as they are not available for the Edge holder, didn't like them anyway.

The currency is in CAD$, you have to select USD$ from a drop down https://bladetechhockey.com/collections/all?currency=USD

It's about 100$

Edited by Giltis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jeff Azzolin Bladetech said:

None taken - Im just casually saying that perhaps taking a view from a different lens and looking at some facts may yield different thoughts. 1 - We dont have NHL players out of fluke, they choose to use because they love it, so the product most be good enough for them to use. 2 - Most people, rec or pro, who give it a solid try (a few hours) do fall in love with it. Yes, sure, absolutely, it is different. But different is not always bad, or a gimmick. And sometimes different needs a chance to prove itself. Look at carbon fiber and the hesitancy to adopt it in sticks... and now look 10 years down the road... 3 - The marketing is not far-fetched, we are outlining 5% improvements based on the same science/physics/principles successfully implemented in adjacent industries that have proven to break records and recorded large improvements for decades now. 4 - We chose to sit at a price delta of +20% ish or +20 bucks ish for the added value, not a bad proposition (subjective - haha).  5 - We started a company by inventing something, then we got USPTO and CIPO issued patents, then we performed lab testing and iterations, and yes, now have NHL players using it and winning Stanley Cups with it. Not many other companies have taken this technical and innovative path. And certainly, no other steel company took anything close to this path.  So with this in mind and finally getting to my point now, when for example, you said "need numbers" or others insinuate that test results can be made up by anybody...etc, I would be tempted to say, there are quite a few numbers and processes listed on our site, and if one took the time to read the site in its entirety, they might very well be impressed with the level of information presented and the path we took. Perhaps sure, we need to invest more time or thought into the website and/or make things more clear, but we can never satisfy everyone, our resources are limited, so we try and outline what we feel is an acceptable amount of information. If really tempted, I could go a step further and note that the big OEMs don't tend to publish much/any of their ''numbers'' or test results; they usually just launch a new product, make commercials with paid athletes, and the masses just blindly accept. So perhaps what Bladetech has done is levels ahead and pound-for-pound we are punching well above our weight for a company that is a fraction's-fraction's-fraction of the OEMs we are compared to. Or maybe Im totally out of it. Not sure. Hahah. But either way, its great to connect with you and the others here and answer what I can to help educate. At the end of the day, we are shooting the shit on hockey, there are much worse things I can think of. 😉 Cheers!

Have you ever condisdered offering profiled steel much like Tydan does? 

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...