JAY4114 6 Report post Posted December 27, 2024 What’s the actual lie of ccm’s p29? I was trying to line it up against some other brand and it seemed a lot lower. I tried it against a Ccm p28 and it seemed lower than that too. It seemed to be close to true’s lie 5 p92 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IPv6Freely 2095 Report post Posted December 27, 2024 Unless its been changed, its 5.5. Check the pattern database: https://www.modsquadhockey.com/patterndb/ And yes, should be the same as the True TC2 (Bauer P92), again unless its been changed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JAY4114 6 Report post Posted December 28, 2024 1 hour ago, IPv6Freely said: Unless its been changed, its 5.5. Check the pattern database: https://www.modsquadhockey.com/patterndb/ And yes, should be the same as the True TC2 (Bauer P92), again unless its been changed Oh wow I didn’t even know that existed thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flip12 717 Report post Posted December 28, 2024 9 hours ago, JAY4114 said: What’s the actual lie of ccm’s p29? I was trying to line it up against some other brand and it seemed a lot lower. I tried it against a Ccm p28 and it seemed lower than that too. It seemed to be close to true’s lie 5 p92 It is a bit lower than P28. It’s more consistently rockered from heel to toe, which probably makes it difficult to get a good reading on. CCM also tended to measure their lies higher than other brands like Easton, which was kind of a standard for a while. Warrior was notoriously low in their measurements until they changed to match others. Another example of CCM’s high lie measurement bias is P46. They had it at 5.5 or 6 while they labeled P28 as lie 5. I’m sure they had P28 at 5 because that was the industry norm at the time. Both curves were the same lie as their predecessor curves were though: P46 came from E4, with an Easton lie of 5 and P28 came from E6, with an Easton lie of 5.5. Somehow Easton messed everyone up by calling P28 lie 5, possibly because they were listening too much to Bjugstad. He was apparently behind the push for P92-5 but it wasn’t 5 by the old E4 standard. Easton had more pressing issues at the time so worrying about lie measurement consistency could easily have been an oversight. Long story short, P29 is lower than a lot of other patterns on the market these days. CCM has always just measured stuff on the high end of the lie scale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IPv6Freely 2095 Report post Posted December 29, 2024 On 12/27/2024 at 5:10 PM, JAY4114 said: Oh wow I didn’t even know that existed thanks! I'm not sure when it was last updated, but I had to re-write the tool when the site was restored after an outage and we changed hosts :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites