Ellipse Profiles – The next revolution in skate profiling?

[xxlulzxx 2]

I could offer two sets of profiled ls3 blades to every skater on this thread (one 11 ’ and one 13’) but market them as one quad and one ellipse profile and get the same results/conversations. 

[BenBreeg 493]

3 hours ago, xxlulzxx said:

I could offer two sets of profiled ls3 blades to every skater on this thread (one 11 ’ and one 13’) but market them as one quad and one ellipse profile and get the same results/conversations. 

Distinct possibility, but that says a lot about trying to split hairs with all these profiles.  It doesn’t seem like they came up with them through research, but from a theoretical approach and just threw them out there.

[hockeydad3 51]

3 hours ago, xxlulzxx said:

I could offer two sets of profiled ls3 blades to every skater on this thread (one 11 ’ and one 13’) but market them as one quad and one ellipse profile and get the same results/conversations. 

Maybe, but only if they didn´t use a multiple radius profile before. If you are talking about the gliding area of a blade, these profiles are more or less similar to a single radius. The Quad zero has a 11' gliding area.

I had made experiences with 10', 11' and 13' single radius profiles before. This winter I could test the Ellipse zero Profile and the True stock 9'/10' dual profile. These newer profiles have distinct and recognizable individual different properties.

I think that those multiple radius profiles could lead to a smaller individual compromise between agility/acceleration and stability/glide.

[xxlulzxx 2]

Yes this is very true. Great points 

[start_today 770]

The name of the quad vs eclipse profiles being off by roughly 1, plus the fact that the quad .5 was “half way” between 1 and 2, makes me think that maybe they should take an extra few days to review their naming processes before they start marketing them. 

[BenBreeg 493]

Yep, the naming sucks, but maybe they should first figure out how to match a profile with a skater so people have a clue instead of creating all these profiles that make peoples eyes glaze over when they look at them.  My gut (albeit with no data) says there are only a few profiles that matter.

[hockeydad3 51]

I think one mistake people make is to compare different sizes of one profile instead of comparing different profiles developped for their runner length. For example if you put a Quad II profile on a size 2 skate you will allmost get a 13' single radius profile. I am missing a good technical definition of the practical differences between the three multiradius profiles instead of calling them agility, power and dynamic. A database with the runner length, instead of skate sizes, for which the profiles were developed and a description of the effect that a bigger or smaller runner would have on the properties of the profile would be nice.

Edited March 29, 2021 by hockeydad3

[hockeydad3 51]

Let us try a theoretical and analytic approach to compare the Zuperior and the Quad profile and let us use the information provided by Prosharp (all with a grain of salt):

Comparing the Zuperior S and the Quad Zero (both developped for size 7-8 skates):

Assuming that the dominat zone for most skating action is the middle(maybe 80%?) part oft the speed/agility area, the Zuperior S has a 12' radius with a bit of a 20' radius towards the heel with a little bit of a 6' radius towards the toes and the Quad Zero has a 11' radius with a bit of a 9' radius towards the toes and a little bit of a 13' radius towards the heel. If we put a longer profile on a shorter runner, the middle part of the profile becomes even more dominant.

Who knows what happens if we put a shorter profile on a longer runner? And what happens to the pitch if we change the runner size? Or what happens to the profile if we change the pitch?

Those numbers can explain the differences between the two profiles. And it could explain why a Zuperior XS feels more close to a Quad Zero.

If the Ellipse XS feels more close to a Quad Zero, then it could be that the Ellipse profile is more like a Zuperior profile, or it could be located in between the Zuperior profile and the Quad profile.

So to get further with our findings we should compare the three profiles(Zuperior, Quad and Ellipse), in the size developed for the runner size, on the ice.

Edited March 30, 2021 by hockeydad3

[Beflar 53]

On 3/28/2021 at 5:11 PM, start_today said:

The name of the quad vs eclipse profiles being off by roughly 1, plus the fact that the quad .5 was “half way” between 1 and 2, makes me think that maybe they should take an extra few days to review their naming processes before they start marketing them. 

The quad 0.5 was created for people skating on a single profile their whole lives.  (I think one of the posters here played a hand in suggesting it).  So it is a Quad but not as dramatic 8-10-12-14 vs 7-10-13-16, which is why a lot of people seem to like it.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

On 3/30/2021 at 4:31 PM, Beflar said:

The quad 0.5 was created for people skating on a single profile their whole lives.  (I think one of the posters here played a hand in suggesting it).  So it is a Quad but not as dramatic 8-10-12-14 vs 7-10-13-16, which is why a lot of people seem to like it.

Correct. it was designed for the North American player using single and doubles that wanted just a slight change.  

[hockeydad3 51]

On 3/15/2021 at 1:33 PM, pgeorgan said:

Skated on the Ellipse XS last night.

It's definitely way better than the Ellipse 0 in terms of fit for my holder size (254 and coming from a Quad 0).

I tried the Ellipse 0 last winter and I lacked some agility. I'm just thinking about the profile I want to try next. I'm on 254mm steel. From your experience, can you remember the differences between the Quad 0 and Ellipse XS profiles?

[hockeydad3 51]

Because I was searching for something more maneuverable than Ellipse Zero, I had the choice between the Ellipse XS, Zuperior XS and Quad Zero. Finally I made the decision to try the Ellipse XS next.

Due to covid lockdown during the last months, I only had been playing for some Times on TF7 roller skates on outdoor rinks. And I was skating for my own on a pond for maybe 5-10 times during the winter. End of september was the last time I was in a inside hockey rink. So you should take my latest experiences with a grain of salt.

On wednesday I was on ice playing hockey with my almost brandnew TF7( 6.5R 254mm, never played Hockey with them). My first impression with the Ellipse Zero(3/4") was awfull, too much forward pitch, too much steel under my toes and under my heel and the feeling like beeing on rails. After two minutes I changed my Step runners for the stock ones with the Ellipse XS(11/16"). Way better, everything was feeling natural as it should be and more than enough maneuverability, grip and glide.

I will continue with the Ellipse Xs and after some time I will reevaluate again. It would be nice if I had finally found a hockeyskate setup for myself and could concentrate on skating.

[Ric_Flair 4]

On 1/26/2021 at 12:25 AM, kkskate said:

I evaluated the Ellipse XS last night and I was impressed.  My skates use a smaller runner 246/254 so keep that in mind.  I used to skate on the Quad 1 though recently converted to the Ellipse 0/1.  I have 2 sets of blades and have been alternating.  Overall my feet felt lighter, more agile, and I was able to turn them over faster.  I didn't not notice the pitch difference between the Ellipse XS and the Ellipse 0/1.  Ellipse XS has slightly less pitch the the 0, 1, and 2.  I did feel a slight loss in stability though the positive gains were enough that I'll probably stick with the XS over the others.

Which size is it that your skates use, 246 or 254... it can't be both?

[noupf 42]

On 7/24/2021 at 4:55 AM, hockeydad3 said:

Because I was searching for something more maneuverable than Ellipse Zero, I had the choice between the Ellipse XS, Zuperior XS and Quad Zero. Finally I made the decision to try the Ellipse XS next.

Due to covid lockdown during the last months, I only had been playing for some Times on TF7 roller skates on outdoor rinks. And I was skating for my own on a pond for maybe 5-10 times during the winter. End of september was the last time I was in a inside hockey rink. So you should take my latest experiences with a grain of salt.

On wednesday I was on ice playing hockey with my almost brandnew TF7( 6.5R 254mm, never played Hockey with them). My first impression with the Ellipse Zero(3/4") was awfull, too much forward pitch, too much steel under my toes and under my heel and the feeling like beeing on rails. After two minutes I changed my Step runners for the stock ones with the Ellipse XS(11/16"). Way better, everything was feeling natural as it should be and more than enough maneuverability, grip and glide.

I will continue with the Ellipse Xs and after some time I will reevaluate again. It would be nice if I had finally found a hockeyskate setup for myself and could concentrate on skating.

I'm kind of feeling the same way in terms of a lack of agility, but for me on the elipse 1 profile.  This is the first time in my 20 years of playing ice hockey that I am experimenting with profiles. 

I recently broke a blade and wanted to refresh my Graf Ultra G75's with new holders and new steel.  I stumbled across the whole "profiling thing" on the web site here, after doing my research and speaking with Anthony at @kkskate, I decided to give it try. 

I am currently on Step Steel 288 blades ( size 10 skate ) and went with the elipse 1 as recommended.  For the most part i like it.  I'm a bigger (6'3 230lbs ), more upright style skater and the only thing I've been going back and forth with Anthony about is that i feel like i a little too much steel under my toe.  I've skated in 3 spirited pick up games and 2 men's league games so far and i feel very balanced on most of the profile.

Anthony did give me a neutral pitch with the profile as we agreed that the Graf's already have a forward pitch to them and like i said, after 4-5 good skates, I feel very balanced and stable the whole way through...….except when i really try to do some crossovers and get a little more agile with the toe.  

I am curious if the elipse 0 would give me a little less steel up front and give me that little bit of extra "pop" and agility in my stride that I feel like I may be missing.

 

[kkskate 12]

On 9/11/2021 at 12:47 PM, Ric_Flair said:

Which size is it that your skates use, 246 or 254... it can't be both?

I have 2 sets of True customs.  The skates have different holders.  1 is 246 the other is 254.

[Ric_Flair 4]

3 hours ago, kkskate said:

I have 2 sets of True customs.  The skates have different holders.  1 is 246 the other is 254.

Ah OK. And how do you like that compared to... whatever quad you have tried/used? Am liking the quad (it's on a 263 runner, so I will assume with 95% certainty that it's quad 0); Am moving down to a smaller skate and hence runner shortly (254). What do you suggest I use to "keep the same feeling" when skating?

Thanks maa.

[kkskate 12]

12 hours ago, Ric_Flair said:

Ah OK. And how do you like that compared to... whatever quad you have tried/used? Am liking the quad (it's on a 263 runner, so I will assume with 95% certainty that it's quad 0); Am moving down to a smaller skate and hence runner shortly (254). What do you suggest I use to "keep the same feeling" when skating?

Thanks maa.

The Quad 0 is still a good fit for 254, you can likely stick with it.

Quad Zero (6-9-11-13 ft, 221-263, 20mm)

I personally skated on the Quad 1 for years with 254 runners and was my favorite.

Quad I (6-9-12-15 ft, 254-280, 20mm pitch)

[Ric_Flair 4]

21 minutes ago, kkskate said:

The Quad 0 is still a good fit for 254, you can likely stick with it.

Quad Zero (6-9-11-13 ft, 221-263, 20mm)

I personally skated on the Quad 1 for years with 254 runners and was my favorite.

Quad I (6-9-12-15 ft, 254-280, 20mm pitch)

Ah ok, good to know. 
Will try the quad/power profile that comes stock (is it fair to assume it’s a quad XS on the stock 254 Ultrasonics?) 

I will have couple other sets of blades as well. If I wanted to try other quad sizes, is it better to start from “upper size” and move down, in the event I don’t like it and want to resize the quad, for example?

ie. start with quad 1, if I don’t like I can move down to 0 etc… is that the best way to go to not chew away too much blade if/when re-profiling? 

You’ve tried ellipse? Sizes? Like, dis-like? Compare to quads?

Thanks man, much appreciated.

Oh… and the pitch, you mean CL moved back 20mm so that you’re “pitched” forward in stance? Don’t think I like the forward pitch feel, remember my old 704s and couldn’t figure out why I didn’t like them… days before all this analysis etc 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Ric_Flair
Misspellings etc

[mojo122 535]

2 hours ago, Ric_Flair said:

Ah ok, good to know. 
Will try the quad/power profile that comes stock (is it fair to assume it’s a quad XS on the stock 254 Ultrasonics?) 

I will have couple other sets of blades as well. If I wanted to try other quad sizes, is it better to start from “upper size” and move down, in the event I don’t like it and want to resize the quad, for example?

Correct in that 254 runners are profiled with the Quad XS on the Ultrasonic.

As for other Quads, I've skated both Quad 0 and Quad 1 on 254 runners.  Liked the Quad 1 and really don't notice a big difference between that and the XS.  As for the Quad 1: Agility and straight line skating were fine, but I felt the longer back of the blade made transitioning from forward to backward skating somewhat difficult.

My all time favorite profile is the 35/65.

[Ric_Flair 4]

On 9/16/2021 at 12:16 AM, mojo122 said:

Correct in that 254 runners are profiled with the Quad XS on the Ultrasonic.

As for other Quads, I've skated both Quad 0 and Quad 1 on 254 runners.  Liked the Quad 1 and really don't notice a big difference between that and the XS.  As for the Quad 1: Agility and straight line skating were fine, but I felt the longer back of the blade made transitioning from forward to backward skating somewhat difficult.

My all time favorite profile is the 35/65.

I’m relatively new to profiling; what’s the 35/65… does it have any big “pitch”? (Sounds like it would.)
I don’t like to be pitched forward, but I do play forward. My best skating days (Jr. hockey, 20+ years ago) was on a Bauer Supreme 7000 when I had no idea of profiling (so whatever came stock then I guess), and used a 3/8 inch hollow. 
Can you kindly explain a bit about the 35/65… and would you how you compare ellipse profiles to quads? 
Many thanks for your input pal! 

Edited October 8, 2021 by Ric_Flair

[mojo122 535]

Never skated on the Ellipse so cannot comment on that.  

 

[kkskate 12]

On 9/15/2021 at 3:26 PM, Ric_Flair said:

Ah ok, good to know. 
Will try the quad/power profile that comes stock (is it fair to assume it’s a quad XS on the stock 254 Ultrasonics?) 

I will have couple other sets of blades as well. If I wanted to try other quad sizes, is it better to start from “upper size” and move down, in the event I don’t like it and want to resize the quad, for example?

ie. start with quad 1, if I don’t like I can move down to 0 etc… is that the best way to go to not chew away too much blade if/when re-profiling? 

You’ve tried ellipse? Sizes? Like, dis-like? Compare to quads?

Thanks man, much appreciated.

Oh… and the pitch, you mean CL moved back 20mm so that you’re “pitched” forward in stance? Don’t think I like the forward pitch feel, remember my old 704s and couldn’t figure out why I didn’t like them… days before all this analysis etc 

The Quad 0 and the Quad 1 are very similar so I don't think it will make too much of a difference either way.  It's possible the Quad 1 might take off more steel to get the 15' radius in the rear.  I like the Ellipse though for my blade size I felt a bit in between the Ellipse XS and the Ellipse 0. 

Correct on the 20 mm.  It's the pivot point of the blade.  It can be customized to your preference.

[hockeydad3 51]

After a few weeks with the Ellipse XS I was still not one hundred percent satisfied and this week I tried a Quad Zero Profile with pivotpoint reduced by 10mm. All I can say after a one-hour hockey session is that it plays in the same league as the Ellipse XS, but is still quite different. What I can clearly say is that the forward pitch is less, but still sufficient, and the heel and the toe are much rounder. It feels more like a classic single profile in comparison. In a subjective and retrospective comparison, the Ellipse XS is slightly faster and even more manoeuvrable, but the Quad Zero accelerates better and is better for cross overs. But for an accurate comparison, I first have to get used to the quad and then try it out one-to-one. The winner is far from certain, although the quad profile feels better for me at first.

[Ric_Flair 4]

Please weigh in on.... Quad XS vs. Quad 0.5 vs. Ellipse XS... on a 254 blade length. 

Feel free to freelance and mention other profiles if you wish, your experiences etc.

Thanks folks.

[VegasHockey 1280]

On 10/6/2021 at 7:01 AM, Ric_Flair said:

Please weigh in on.... Quad XS vs. Quad 0.5 vs. Ellipse XS... on a 254 blade length. 

Feel free to freelance and mention other profiles if you wish, your experiences etc.

Thanks folks.

You want opinions based on what?

The Quad XS and 0.5 are both slightly similar, but the Ellipse XS is nothing like either of those.