10' profile

[pgeorgan 77]

I've tried almost every ProSharp profile there is and recently skated on out-of-the-box Bauer Fly-X. Best skate I've ever had. Used to be a big believer in these other profiles but not anymore. I feel stupid for having skated on the quads the last several years. 

[Larry54 243]

I tried quad zero once on my 254mm blade only because I could order a new blade with it. After a year I never really gelled with it and I wasn't willing to go down the profile rabbit hole. So I went back to the 10' factory profile and felt right at home. Maybe my brain / muscle memory couldn't adapt to multiple contours. I think I'm better off practising on a single profile than trying to find a magic profile that might improve my skating somehow. The farthest I might go from a single profile is to try a 9/10 or 9.5/10.5. Just my 2 cents.

Edited November 1 by Larry54

[puckpilot 312]

IMHO, profiles have their place. I've always treated them like a tool aiding me as I work to improve. They never fixed any of my issues. They never made me a better skater. At best they masked my flaws. I used a 13/26 profile with a negative pitch for like 5 years. It's what I needed as I worked on my flaws. 

About 6 months ago, I moved back to a 13' neutral profile, which is what I think I need/want now as I further work on getting better. I'm sure down the road, I'll probably move a little bit closer to the 10' stock profile, but we'll see.

To me, profiles are like curves. A curve makes certain things easier/harder, but it isn't going to make you something you're not. Just because you use Ovi's curve doesn't mean you can shoot like Ovi. Just as using profile X isn't going to make you McDavid. Anyone who says otherwise is selling you a bridge. 

[pgeorgan 77]

On 10/31/2024 at 10:08 PM, puckpilot said:

IMHO, profiles have their place. I've always treated them like a tool aiding me as I work to improve. They never fixed any of my issues. They never made me a better skater. At best they masked my flaws. I used a 13/26 profile with a negative pitch for like 5 years. It's what I needed as I worked on my flaws. 

About 6 months ago, I moved back to a 13' neutral profile, which is what I think I need/want now as I further work on getting better. I'm sure down the road, I'll probably move a little bit closer to the 10' stock profile, but we'll see.

To me, profiles are like curves. A curve makes certain things easier/harder, but it isn't going to make you something you're not. Just because you use Ovi's curve doesn't mean you can shoot like Ovi. Just as using profile X isn't going to make you McDavid. Anyone who says otherwise is selling you a bridge. 

My experience was similar. Probably made me a better skater for having had the experience, but going back to a 10' for the first time in years was sort of eye opening. It dawned on me that the idea of a quad or a multi-radii profile is somewhat flawed in that I'm not sure you can really have the best of both worlds. Eg, agility doesn't just come from the front part of the runner. If you flatten the back to add stability, you're going to notice it in other aspects of your game. You're definitely going to lose some agility, somewhere. 

Further, I don't really feel that "unstable" on a basic 10' with neutral pitch as compared to a quad. I'm right where I need to be on my skates and I think that translates to being the most stable, IMO. That's certainly how I feel on the ice, anyway. 

[pgeorgan 77]

On 10/31/2024 at 9:05 PM, Larry54 said:

I tried quad zero once on my 254mm blade only because I could order a new blade with it. After a year I never really gelled with it and I wasn't willing to go down the profile rabbit hole. So I went back to the 10' factory profile and felt right at home. Maybe my brain / muscle memory couldn't adapt to multiple contours. I think I'm better off practising on a single profile than trying to find a magic profile that might improve my skating somehow. The farthest I might go from a single profile is to try a 9/10 or 9.5/10.5. Just my 2 cents.

I think a 9.5/10.5 is about the only one I'd considered trying at this point, just given the positive experience I've had with a basic 10'. 

Edited November 2 by pgeorgan

[Larry54 243]

On 11/2/2024 at 9:09 AM, pgeorgan said:

My experience was similar. Probably made me a better skater for having had the experience, but going back to a 10' for the first time in years was sort of eye opening. It dawned on me that the idea of a quad or a multi-radii profile is somewhat flawed in that I'm not sure you can really have the best of both worlds. Eg, agility doesn't just come from the front part of the runner. If you flatten the back to add stability, you're going to notice it in other aspects of your game. You're definitely going to lose some agility, somewhere. 

Further, I don't really feel that "unstable" on a basic 10' with neutral pitch as compared to a quad. I'm right where I need to be on my skates and I think that translates to being the most stable, IMO. That's certainly how I feel on the ice, anyway. 

I feel that if you work enough on your skating, you reach a level of stability that makes flatter portions of a profile less necessary. And the flatter portions will only limit your agility. If one's goal is only top speed that might be another story. But I find agility much more useful than top speed in hockey, anyway. Each person has different needs, and the 10' gives me what I need.

Edited November 3 by Larry54

[flip12 714]

Different profiles for different people though. I feel much more agile on 13'+1 than I did on neutral 10' or 9.5'/10.5' (if that's True's stock profile). I don't feel the blade catching at all when I don't want it to. I'm thinking of going to an even longer profile next.

I haven't tried any of the more complicated combos, but I really don't want a super short profile in the front of my blade as well as the added pitch. The added pitch is enough.

Just like ROH, I'd say go with what works. If you get good enough grip at a shallower hollow or if you have enough agility and quickness at a longer radius, it'll only help. As soon as the blade is grabbing when you're not expecting it there's too much dig, either front-to-back/profile or side-to-side/hollow, and it's time to back off. That's my work-in-progress theory.

[pgeorgan 77]

On 11/4/2024 at 9:25 AM, flip12 said:

Different profiles for different people though. I feel much more agile on 13'+1 than I did on neutral 10' or 9.5'/10.5' (if that's True's stock profile). I don't feel the blade catching at all when I don't want it to. I'm thinking of going to an even longer profile next.

I haven't tried any of the more complicated combos, but I really don't want a super short profile in the front of my blade as well as the added pitch. The added pitch is enough.

I'm thinking of trying a 9.5/10.5 but am nervous I'll lose a lot of the agility I have with a 10'. Wondering what your opinion was of the two, since it appears you've tried them both. Or anyone else for that matter. Some other folks have said that it feels like a Quad 0.5, but that's 8-10-12-14, so not really sure how those could be at all similar. In my experience, the Quad 0.5 would just be another one of those "skates on rails" profiles, which I'm not going back to. 

I've also heard good things about the Elite SCS 1. The SCS 1 in standard size is 6-17-13-4, which just trying to wrap my head around sounds pretty wild. They also don't tell you how much of each section is profiled to which radius. 

Edited Friday at 07:44 PM by pgeorgan

[flip12 714]

2 hours ago, pgeorgan said:

I'm thinking of trying a 9.5/10.5 but am nervous I'll lose a lot of the agility I have with a 10'. Wondering what your opinion was of the two, since it appears you've tried them both. Or anyone else for that matter. Some other folks have said that it feels like a Quad 0.5, but that's 8-10-12-14, so not really sure how those could be at all similar. In my experience, the Quad 0.5 would just be another one of those "skates on rails" profiles, which I'm not going back to. 

I've also heard good things about the Elite SCS 1. The SCS 1 in standard size is 6-17-13-4, which just trying to wrap my head around sounds pretty wild. They also don't tell you how much of each section is profiled to which radius. 

I'm not the best to comment because I'm drifting toward the long end of the profile spectrum. I think the closer I get to what my skating mechanics were developed on, the more natural I feel on the ice. I really honed my skating for hours in my apartment building's parking lot on '96 or '97 Mission Proto Vs on a 4 x 72mm chassis. The more my blades mimic the pitch and flat radius of those rollerblades, the more natural I feel on the ice.

I get why some skaters would feel locked on rails in a 10' radius, but my mechanics seem to center around something closer to 20' +2. 13' and Ellipse II, both at +1 pitch, feel perfectly short and quick to me. 13' neutral felt a little rail like, but as soon as I had it redone with +1 pitch I never felt stuck on the ice again. It seems like the shorter front sections can mimic the effect of pitch if you don't actually want to mess with pitch.

My favorite ice setup so far has been Cobra's stock 11' (now I think they're doing 10') on what felt like at least +2, compared to the +1s I have at the moment.

[pgeorgan 77]

7 minutes ago, flip12 said:

I'm not the best to comment because I'm drifting toward the long end of the profile spectrum. I think the closer I get to what my skating mechanics were developed on, the more natural I feel on the ice. I really honed my skating for hours in my apartment building's parking lot on '96 or '97 Mission Proto Vs on a 4 x 72mm chassis. The more my blades mimic the pitch and flat radius of those rollerblades, the more natural I feel on the ice.

I get why some skaters would feel locked on rails in a 10' radius, but my mechanics seem to center around something closer to 20' +2. 13' and Ellipse II, both at +1 pitch, feel perfectly short and quick to me. 13' neutral felt a little rail like, but as soon as I had it redone with +1 pitch I never felt stuck on the ice again. It seems like the shorter front sections can mimic the effect of pitch if you don't actually want to mess with pitch.

My favorite ice setup so far has been Cobra's stock 11' (now I think they're doing 10') on what felt like at least +2, compared to the +1s I have at the moment.

Similar situation for me on rollerblades, actually. The only problem is those boots could actually flex!

One of the pleasant surprises of going from Quad to 10' was that I found I didn't need to tie my laces as tight. Having so much toe shaved down in the case of the Quad was forcing me to tie my laces tighter than what was optimal, for whatever reason. 

Edited Friday at 11:02 PM by pgeorgan

[flip12 714]

22 hours ago, pgeorgan said:

Similar situation for me on rollerblades, actually. The only problem is those boots could actually flex!

One of the pleasant surprises of going from Quad to 10' was that I found I didn't need to tie my laces as tight. Having so much toe shaved down in the case of the Quad was forcing me to tie my laces tighter than what was optimal, for whatever reason. 

The boot flex definitely has some effect on this equation, though I was stumped just when I thought I was getting it. I had some VSi's converted to ice, on VH/Step holders, thinking they'd be as amazing on ice as they were on their original 72/80 HIlo. They were not. They felt comfy, but pretty much as frustrating as any other ice hockey skate I've tried, with a few exceptions. I think that was the moment that I decided to actually start trying out profiles, which I had been thinking about doing for a long time.

My favorite boots do feature a similar degree of forward flex and lateral stability as the Proto Vs did though: Vapor 8, Vapor 10, Mega Air 90, 703, and MLX with the right tongue.

With the right boot, like the Vapor 10, even a profile on the opposite end of the spectrum feels quite nice. I can only imagine how Vapor 10 on my ideal profile would feel, once I find it.

[pgeorgan 77]

1 hour ago, flip12 said:

The boot flex definitely has some effect on this equation, though I was stumped just when I thought I was getting it. I had some VSi's converted to ice, on VH/Step holders, thinking they'd be as amazing on ice as they were on their original 72/80 HIlo. They were not. They felt comfy, but pretty much as frustrating as any other ice hockey skate I've tried, with a few exceptions. I think that was the moment that I decided to actually start trying out profiles, which I had been thinking about doing for a long time.

My favorite boots do feature a similar degree of forward flex and lateral stability as the Proto Vs did though: Vapor 8, Vapor 10, Mega Air 90, 703, and MLX with the right tongue.

With the right boot, like the Vapor 10, even a profile on the opposite end of the spectrum feels quite nice. I can only imagine how Vapor 10 on my ideal profile would feel, once I find it.

I was on Mission's. Last pair was from circa 2001. Couldn't tell you which ones, but they had the plastic hooks on the outside for heel lock. I used to ratchet down the heel lock part and then skip every eyelet after except the top, which I made extra tight. 

Edited Saturday at 11:45 PM by pgeorgan

[flip12 714]

13 hours ago, pgeorgan said:

I was on Mission's. Last pair was from circa 2001. Couldn't tell you which ones, but they had the plastic hooks on the outside for heel lock. I used to ratchet down the heel lock part and then skip every eyelet after except the top, which I made extra tight. 

My Mission Proto Vs had a metal d-ring instead of the plastic loop. I think it was one generation before they went to the plastic loops. I don't think I used it. I just laced snug, but not overly tight, all the way up. The cut on those was like 90's Tacks on Ozempic. I think that was the basic idea behind the Proto line. By reducing the volume with lower vamping, it made for a nice snug fit, similar to Tacks with the ankle hinge flex, but more connected. The first two generations of Vapors were similar in that respect. The ankle creasing made for a boot with great forward flex while maintaining lateral stability.