Ellipse Profiles – The next revolution in skate profiling?

[Ric_Flair 4]

37 minutes ago, noupf said:

did you have the same set of steel profiled multiple times or did you get separate blade sets with only one profile on them....and then just switch them in and out to compare?

Separate. I will still experiment every now and then with the ellipse, might even go down an ellipse size or two (to XXS or even XXXS) as some people seem to experience that the 2-sized smaller ellipse is similar to the Quad (that is two sizes larger). So, a Quad 0 is similar to ellipse XXS, for example. Some people say two sizes down, some say 1... I haven't ran that "test" yet.

I've several different sets of blades, but must say for me, the stock "power profile" which is a Quad XS for my blades, I really like! 

[hockeydad3 51]

2 hours ago, noupf said:

I am on my first ever profiled set of blades ( 288 step steel ) and I went with the ellipse 1.  I absolutely love everything about the profile except that the front 1/3 of the blade feels "long".  Meaning, when I want to get up onto my toes to dig in, crossover and accelerate, the blade just feels a little too big in its radius ( the "long" feeling ). and I really have to concentrate or try too hard to utilize the toe for quick acceleration.

That's the same problem I had with the Ellipse and Zuperior profile. I tried a lot of profiles for my 254mm runners(Ellipse Zero, Ellipse XS, Quad Zero, Zuperior XS and Quad XS) with my two sets of runners. I don´t like the toe area of the Ellipse and Zuperior profile. Finally it seems that I'm going to stay with the Quad XS for the next time. And with the Quad XS(recommended for 254mm) I could go to the recommended ROH 19mm(3/4"). Before the change I was using a 92/75 FBV(9/16" ROH) with my 11' single profile. Prosharp recommends a 25mm(1") ROH for the  Quad I and the Quad I for 288mm runners.

I´m happy with the agility and acceleration of the Quad XS.

[noupf 42]

19 minutes ago, hockeydad3 said:

That's the same problem I had with the Ellipse and Zuperior profile. I tried a lot of profiles for my 254mm runners(Ellipse Zero, Ellipse XS, Quad Zero, Zuperior XS and Quad XS) with my two sets of runners. I don´t like the toe area of the Ellipse and Zuperior profile. Finally it seems that I'm going to stay with the Quad XS for the next time. And with the Quad XS(recommended for 254mm) I could go to the recommended ROH 19mm(3/4"). Before the change I was using a 92/75 FBV(9/16" ROH) with my 11' single profile. Prosharp recommends a 25mm(1") ROH for the  Quad I and the Quad I for 288mm runners.

I´m happy with the agility and acceleration of the Quad XS.

yea, that's why i'd like to see a quad 1 profiled blade ( or the profile template ) on top of an ellipse 1 profiled blade ( or template ) to see if the toe is closer to where i'd like it to be.  I'm on a 3/4 ROH now with the ellpise 1 and am completely fine with that sharpening.  I love it all.....just not quite in love with the toe area radius.

Edited November 24, 2021 by noupf

[hockeydad3 51]

I tried to compare two different runners. It´s almost impossible to see a big difference. But you can feel a big difference while skating.

Compared to the Ellipse, the toe area of the Quad is more like a short traditional single radius profile.

[Ric_Flair 4]

9 hours ago, hockeydad3 said:

I tried to compare two different runners. It´s almost impossible to see a big difference. But you can feel a big difference while skating.

Compared to the Ellipse, the toe area of the Quad is more like a short traditional single radius profile.

Yes, easier to get up on the toes with the Quad I think. Try Ellipse a few sizes down from the recommendation, see if that helps? I will try that at some point. But still just want to get completely dialed inn to the Quad right now... love it!

 

[Paluce 24]

On 11/24/2021 at 2:03 PM, noupf said:

yea, that's why i'd like to see a quad 1 profiled blade ( or the profile template ) on top of an ellipse 1 profiled blade ( or template ) to see if the toe is closer to where i'd like it to be.  I'm on a 3/4 ROH now with the ellpise 1 and am completely fine with that sharpening.  I love it all.....just not quite in love with the toe area radius.

The Problem with the Elipse Profiles is that you can not control the radius in a specific spot on the blade. An elipse as defined by Math is nothing more than an A - B (major - minor) radius to get your shape. So the radius is continuously changing to make it smooth (no transition points like the quad),   but you can not control what you want at different points along the runner.   That's why many dislike the elipse.     What you want is the "OMNI Quad's" from Blackstone. It takes the Quad 0, 0.5, 1, II  and makes them continuously variable (like an elipse) to be super smooth, but better! And you know what the radii are along the blade!  Let me find a picture to help explain... 

[noupf 42]

1 hour ago, Paluce said:

The Problem with the Elipse Profiles is that you can not control the radius in a specific spot on the blade. An elipse as defined by Math is nothing more than an A - B (major - minor) radius to get your shape. So the radius is continuously changing to make it smooth (no transition points like the quad),   but you can not control what you want at different points along the runner.   That's why many dislike the elipse.     What you want is the "OMNI Quad's" from Blackstone. It takes the Quad 0, 0.5, 1, II  and makes them continuously variable (like an elipse) to be super smooth, but better! And you know what the radii are along the blade!  Let me find a picture to help explain... 

Yup, i completely understand what you are saying about the radius continually changing on the ellipse profiles.  I think I found the pic you are referring to in one of your other posts.  It makes sense, the more defined transition zones you have, the more seamless the transitions.......plus you actually know what radius is being used in each area of the blade. 

 

 

[Paluce 24]

1 hour ago, noupf said:

Yup, i completely understand what you are saying about the radius continually changing on the ellipse profiles.  I think I found the pic you are referring to in one of your other posts.  It makes sense, the more defined transition zones you have, the more seamless the transitions.......plus you actually know what radius is being used in each area of the blade. 

 

 

Here's a good pic on my FB page

https://www.facebook.com/LaSalleSkateShop

[BenBreeg 493]

Problem solved, we are soon going to have Quad Ellipses!!!!  Smooth transitions between different size ellipses along the blade...  then people will be more confused than they are now! 

[Paluce 24]

4 hours ago, BenBreeg said:

Problem solved, we are soon going to have Quad Ellipses!!!!  Smooth transitions between different size ellipses along the blade...  then people will be more confused than they are now! 

^^^ now that was the funniest thing I’ve read all day!     But no, for others reading this, that’s not how it works.  

Edited December 2, 2021 by Paluce

[Ellipsing 0]

Went from quad 0 to zuperior small

Then tried ellipse 1 and zero

Ellipse zero is by far the best profile ive tried. You can feel the elliptical profiling when turning. Its not even close in my opinion. Ultrasonic size 7 263 mm. Im getting true customs in a few weeks and Ill see how the profile responds to the higher pitched holder. But so far ellipse zero is it. Dont even try ellipse 1 imo it feels like a turning a barge

Edited December 8, 2021 by Ellipsing

[kkskate 12]

2 minutes ago, Ellipsing said:

Went from quad 0 to zuperior small

Then tried ellipse 1 and zero

Ellipse zero is by far the best profile ive tried. You can feel the elliptical profiling when turning. Its not even close in my opinion. Ultrasonic size 7 263 mm. Im getting true customs in a few weeks and Ill see how the profile respomds to the higher pitched holder. But so far ellipse zero is it. Dont even try ellipse 1 imo it feels like a turning a barge

This makes sense Ellipse 1 is recommend for size 9-10.  Ellipse Zero is recommended for size 7-8.

[Ric_Flair 4]

2 hours ago, kkskate said:

This makes sense Ellipse 1 is recommend for size 9-10.  Ellipse Zero is recommended for size 7-8.

 

2 hours ago, Ellipsing said:

Went from quad 0 to zuperior small

Then tried ellipse 1 and zero

Ellipse zero is by far the best profile ive tried. You can feel the elliptical profiling when turning. Its not even close in my opinion. Ultrasonic size 7 263 mm. Im getting true customs in a few weeks and Ill see how the profile responds to the higher pitched holder. But so far ellipse zero is it. Dont even try ellipse 1 imo it feels like a turning a barge

Yea, i liked ellipse zero on 263s. Recently went down a size in skates and so am on 254s. Tried ellipse xs (recommended for 254 runners) and yea, ok liked it. But have really liked the quad xs (the stock power profiles for 254s actually, which is a quad xs). For me that’s the winner. As many have said here, there’s something not aggressive enough about the toe of the ellipse… but I’ll try them again tomorrow morning, just for a giggle… I’ll be back 

[noupf 42]

@kkskate  Hey Anthony, any chance you can do an analysis or post some pics of the elipse1 skate template on top of a quad1 and a quad 0.5 template or vice versa?

You did the ellipse1 profile on my 288 step steel blades for my grafs and I love the feeling of stability and speed in the middle and rear portions of my blades.  I've gotten over and adjusted to the catching of my front toe area while skating, but i feel like i have a huge desire for a little more aggressive radius in the front 1/3rd of the blade.  I am curious if quad 1 or quad 0.5 will give me what i want.

As i know it, the quad1 is 6'-9'-12'-15' and the quad 0.5 is 8'-10'-12'-14'.  I just want to see if we can determine what the ellpise1 is closest to in terms of middle and rear portion of the blade profile and if either or both quads can give me that little more aggressive front radius.  Hopefully I can choose one and then send it in to you for profiling.

Edited December 9, 2021 by noupf

[kkskate 12]

19 hours ago, noupf said:

@kkskate  Hey Anthony, any chance you can do an analysis or post some pics of the elipse1 skate template on top of a quad1 and a quad 0.5 template or vice versa?

You did the ellipse1 profile on my 288 step steel blades for my grafs and I love the feeling of stability and speed in the middle and rear portions of my blades.  I've gotten over and adjusted to the catching of my front toe area while skating, but i feel like i have a huge desire for a little more aggressive radius in the front 1/3rd of the blade.  I am curious if quad 1 or quad 0.5 will give me what i want.

As i know it, the quad1 is 6'-9'-12'-15' and the quad 0.5 is 8'-10'-12'-14'.  I just want to see if we can determine what the ellpise1 is closest to in terms of middle and rear portion of the blade profile and if either or both quads can give me that little more aggressive front radius.  Hopefully I can choose one and then send it in to you for profiling.

The difference between the profile templates is so minimal in terms something you can see I don’t think it would help.  If you want a bit more agility the Quad or other Ellipse might help.  Contact me directly and I can call you.

[hockeydad3 51]

If you want more performance, I would try the Quad 1, if you want it smoother I would try the Quad 0.5. But it's all try and error and personal preference. I love the performance of my Quad XS on 254mm.

[Paluce 24]

22 hours ago, noupf said:

@kkskate  Hey Anthony, any chance you can do an analysis or post some pics of the elipse1 skate template on top of a quad1 and a quad 0.5 template or vice versa?

You did the ellipse1 profile on my 288 step steel blades for my grafs and I love the feeling of stability and speed in the middle and rear portions of my blades.  I've gotten over and adjusted to the catching of my front toe area while skating, but i feel like i have a huge desire for a little more aggressive radius in the front 1/3rd of the blade.  I am curious if quad 1 or quad 0.5 will give me what i want.

As i know it, the quad1 is 6'-9'-12'-15' and the quad 0.5 is 8'-10'-12'-14'.  I just want to see if we can determine what the ellpise1 is closest to in terms of middle and rear portion of the blade profile and if either or both quads can give me that little more aggressive front radius.  Hopefully I can choose one and then send it in to you for profiling.

You can achieve a more aggressive toe by offsetting the centre line when your profile with the elipse. If you want an ellipse to match a quad 0.5 or quad 1 profile it can get close but not exact. I’ve analyzing the templets. What you were asking for is the quad one sheet, but with the smoothness of the elipse.  That is the Omni quad one. Check out my Facebook page for a good image that describes the Omni quads. The image is of the quad one with a 6 foot toe and 15 foot heel smoothly blended all the way across the blade.

 

https://m.facebook.com/LaSalleSkateShop/?tsid=0.6065308458443983&source=result

Edited December 10, 2021 by Paluce

[BenBreeg 493]

This is one of those strawmen to me.  Who says there are "harsh transitions" on Quads?  I have been skating on Q0 for three years and don't notice the transitions.  It's not like it goes from a 12' and instantly changes to a 9'.  It's not scalloped.  Like many transitions between different radius arcs, there is what is called an easement, that gradually changes from one radius to another or straight to curve or vice versa. 

[noupf 42]

22 minutes ago, BenBreeg said:

This is one of those strawmen to me.  Who says there are "harsh transitions" on Quads?  I have been skating on Q0 for three years and don't notice the transitions.  It's not like it goes from a 12' and instantly changes to a 9'.  It's not scalloped.  Like many transitions between different radius arcs, there is what is called an easement, that gradually changes from one radius to another or straight to curve or vice versa. 

yea I've read through this thread extensively, multiple times and came to that conclusion too.  This is my first set of profiled blades in my 20+ years of skating, and for me, the idea of the ellipse made a lot of sense, as its one continuous arc, but like you said, if done properly on the quads, ( and I assume pro sharp does it as proper as they can ), the easement between each radius is there, and virtually un-noticeable.

I almost wish i didn't find this whole profiling thing.  Once I get immersed into something, I have to follow through with exploring all avenues......which is where I'm at.  I need to try some other profiles to find the one i like the best.  I really like the middle and rear portions of the ellipse1, I just feel like I'd benefit from a little shorter of a radius in the font 1/3rd of the blade to help with my first couple acceleration steps.

[Ric_Flair 4]

35 minutes ago, noupf said:

yea I've read through this thread extensively, multiple times and came to that conclusion too.  This is my first set of profiled blades in my 20+ years of skating, and for me, the idea of the ellipse made a lot of sense, as its one continuous arc, but like you said, if done properly on the quads, ( and I assume pro sharp does it as proper as they can ), the easement between each radius is there, and virtually un-noticeable.

I almost wish i didn't find this whole profiling thing.  Once I get immersed into something, I have to follow through with exploring all avenues......which is where I'm at.  I need to try some other profiles to find the one i like the best.  I really like the middle and rear portions of the ellipse1, I just feel like I'd benefit from a little shorter of a radius in the font 1/3rd of the blade to help with my first couple acceleration steps.

Starting to agree here as well. Didn't like the Zuperior (tho it was on a 263, and I'm unsure what size.)

Now I have 254s (down-sized my skates) and have used Bauer's Power Profile (Quad XS, 17mm PP), a profile from Pro Connexion in Winnipeg that they couldn't tell me the name of but alluded that it was some sort of quad, and just came off an hour of ice time with an ellipse XS. I'd consider myself a pretty decent skater, played hockey my entire life; Jr. A, minors blah blah and I could hardly tell (if any) difference in the profiles now. 

Seemed few months ago I was bit intrigued by it as I had been off the blades for some years. Now that I have my stride and technique back... Quad and Ellipse (size for my suggested blade length anyway) feel very, very similar. I am starting to be more intrigued now by the hollows, and trying to get use to a more shallow hollow, allows for higher top speed, more glide.

Anyone here try the FBV sharpening system? 
And who has an opinion on the OMNI quads?
What about Quad 0.5?

Happy weekend everyone

[Paluce 24]

4 hours ago, Ric_Flair said:

Starting to agree here as well. Didn't like the Zuperior (tho it was on a 263, and I'm unsure what size.)

Now I have 254s (down-sized my skates) and have used Bauer's Power Profile (Quad XS, 17mm PP), a profile from Pro Connexion in Winnipeg that they couldn't tell me the name of but alluded that it was some sort of quad, and just came off an hour of ice time with an ellipse XS. I'd consider myself a pretty decent skater, played hockey my entire life; Jr. A, minors blah blah and I could hardly tell (if any) difference in the profiles now. 

Seemed few months ago I was bit intrigued by it as I had been off the blades for some years. Now that I have my stride and technique back... Quad and Ellipse (size for my suggested blade length anyway) feel very, very similar. I am starting to be more intrigued now by the hollows, and trying to get use to a more shallow hollow, allows for higher top speed, more glide.

Anyone here try the FBV sharpening system? 
And who has an opinion on the OMNI quads?
What about Quad 0.5?

Happy weekend everyone

OMNI Quad 0.5 is my personal favourite with a 92/75 FBV sharpen.   A lot of the older guys around here like aslo like a 90/75 FBV. Some of the young AAA kids in the area love a 90/1 for the extra bite. 
 

And yes the transitions between the rads on the quads are tangent to each other, but you do have 4 distinct “zones”.  The OMNI’s gradually change the local radius as you move down the blade, just like the elipse. But as people have said before, with the OMNI Quads, you know what you are getting. OMNI Quad 1 is 6’ at the toe, and 15’ at the heal smoothly blended. OMNI Quad 0.5 is 8’ at the toe 14’ at the heal… OMNI quad 0, or 2… you know what you are getting.  It’s just better In my opinion.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Paluce

[Ric_Flair 4]

On 12/10/2021 at 5:33 PM, Ric_Flair said:

Starting to agree here as well. Didn't like the Zuperior (tho it was on a 263, and I'm unsure what size.)

Now I have 254s (down-sized my skates) and have used Bauer's Power Profile (Quad XS, 17mm PP), a profile from Pro Connexion in Winnipeg that they couldn't tell me the name of but alluded that it was some sort of quad, and just came off an hour of ice time with an ellipse XS. I'd consider myself a pretty decent skater, played hockey my entire life; Jr. A, minors blah blah and I could hardly tell (if any) difference in the profiles now. 

Seemed few months ago I was bit intrigued by it as I had been off the blades for some years. Now that I have my stride and technique back... Quad and Ellipse (size for my suggested blade length anyway) feel very, very similar. I am starting to be more intrigued now by the hollows, and trying to get use to a more shallow hollow, allows for higher top speed, more glide.

Anyone here try the FBV sharpening system? 
And who has an opinion on the OMNI quads?
What about Quad 0.5?

Happy weekend everyone

Used ellipse XS (on 254 blades) for 1.5 hours of a good, fast beer league game last night. Noticeable difference (negative) in turning/pivoting quickly. Back to the Quad XS it is for me. 

Can anyone comment on how the blade responds to being re-profiled with a new profile? For example, I had a brand new Pulse Ti profiled to the Ellipse described above. I want to have to profiled to a Quad XS... will it effect the blade any; in specific will it be able to achieve the exact Quad XS that it would have, had I not had it profiled to Ellipse from beginning? My local guy says the toe/heel may be not get to where it would/should have... @kkskate, what you think?

[Ric_Flair 4]

On 12/10/2021 at 1:09 PM, hockeydad3 said:

If you want more performance, I would try the Quad 1, if you want it smoother I would try the Quad 0.5. But it's all try and error and personal preference. I love the performance of my Quad XS on 254mm.

Now that I'm able to "dial in" to how I perform with the profiles, I agree 100%. Quad XS on the 254s = awesome! 

Have you tried/what you think of the OMNI Quad (at least in theory, if you haven't tried)?

[hockeydad3 51]

2 hours ago, Ric_Flair said:

Can anyone comment on how the blade responds to being re-profiled with a new profile? For example, I had a brand new Pulse Ti profiled to the Ellipse described above. I want to have to profiled to a Quad XS... will it effect the blade any; in specific will it be able to achieve the exact Quad XS that it would have, had I not had it profiled to Ellipse from beginning? My local guy says the toe/heel may be not get to where it would/should have... @kkskate, what you think?

If you know what happened to the steel before, and the profiler knows his job, it should be the same. 

[hockeydad3 51]

1 hour ago, Ric_Flair said:

Have you tried/what you think of the OMNI Quad (at least in theory, if you haven't tried)?

I didn't try it. I don't even know if there is a Omni profile developed for 254mm blades. You have to try and compare it to make a decision. I don't think that there is a "one fits all" profile.