Hi-Lo?

[opus22 0]

I personally love the hummer frame like most other people that have tried them. I find that they have a slightly longer wheel base oposed to a hi-lo frame making them slightly less agile than the hi-lo frame. But, I also find that the added grip from the larger wheels keeps frames on par with a hi-lo( hi-lo better agility, hummer more grip). The biggest advantage with the hummer frame for me is that the all 80mm set up allows me to cruze around longer with out loosing speed. This for me does not equal a notisable higher end speed, but a higher consistant speed around the court without skating as much. This for me puts the hummer frame above all other frames! Well done Labeda!!!! :D :P

i noticed a couple of times in is thread that people think they cruise better because of the all 80 mm wheels. flat frames of any wheel size are going to glide or cruise better then hi-lo - its the physics. two different wheel sizes are going to spin at different rates and create drag - however slight. i think all 76's glide better than hi-lo's - it doesnt matter whether or not the wheels are all 80's - hi-lo was about leaning forward, quicker first strides and turning. i noticed if anything i lost a little speed on hi-lo's because in roller i tend to get my speed up and glide around the offensive zone - with or without the puck. doing this with hi-lo's actually slowed me down - the second i stop striding i slow down. thats why i like flat frames better. the beemers sound sweet, but i would put them on other boots than tours which means i would have to use 76's - which i have no problem with.

[Aussie Joe 0]

"...the legs feed the Wolf gentlemen"

Enough said! :)

[Kirsch 1]

I just got some Beemers and have been skating in them quite a bit and I really like the Hummer chassis. I feel faster and more nimble. Don't think I will go back to Hi-Lo.

[MDE3 0]

i noticed a couple of times in is thread that people think they cruise better because of the all 80 mm wheels. flat frames of any wheel size are going to glide or cruise better then hi-lo - its the physics. two different wheel sizes are going to spin at different rates and create drag - however slight. i think all 76's glide better than hi-lo's - it doesnt matter whether or not the wheels are all 80's - hi-lo was about leaning forward, quicker first strides and turning. i noticed if anything i lost a little speed on hi-lo's because in roller i tend to get my speed up and glide around the offensive zone - with or without the puck. doing this with hi-lo's actually slowed me down - the second i stop striding i slow down. thats why i like flat frames better. the beemers sound sweet, but i would put them on other boots than tours which means i would have to use 76's - which i have no problem with.

Well you are right about the physics part controlling the drag, however, the initial reason the HiLo came out was that many hockey chassis were still equipped with all 72 mm wheels, and so by going to a combination of 72mm and 76mm wheels, the total rolling resistance of the chassis was reduced..versus frames with all 72 mm wheels....So you cannot say unilaterally that all straight frame chassis will have a lower rolling resistance. In fact the reduced rolling resistance of the HiLo ws one of the original major selling points...not the manouverability...interesting how times change.....

The concept developed into 72mm in front for agility, and 76 mm in the rear for added glide..reduced rolling resistance....This more so after the all 76mm straight line chassis' became available......The all 76 mm chassis, were less popular more because they were not designed to keep the front portion of the skate as low as the HiLo's, and felt a little less stable with the skate being taller off the floor. The Hum'er has addressed that issue.

As for mounting the Humer's on non Tour boots, you do not need to use only 76 mm wheels, as all that is needed is to miter a small portion of the outsole away with a Dremel tool, to allow the larger 80 mm wheels to fit...this has become a pretty common conversion.....unless you have a very small foot, where the boot will not accept the longer chassis needed to support the all 80 mm wheels..usually smaller than a size 7.

[sdcopp 1]

Actually the first hi-lo was the same as we know it today, at least the first hockey hi-lo. Tour had the first hi-lo on the market as a 72/80 setup, with the buzz words being manuverability and acceleration. We came from all 72's to all 76's in a realtively short period of time, and ran with that standard for a few yrs, until 97-98 when a few people began developing hi-lo. The company Final might still be around today if they would've realised the benefits and market share of the hi-lo for hockey instead of having it developed for speedskating under the Ultimate brand. The was originally intended for skaters with smaller feet. Tour released their's months later and the rest is history, as the industry followed suit. The theory here is that it takes less force to get the smaller wheels turning, but the bigger wheels will cover more ground in a single revolution, making them coast better. By providing a mixed setup, you could reasonably achieve the better of both worlds, but not have either extreme. Tour is now going with one extreme, but doing what they can to compensate for the additional height. If I would have known that there would be patent issues with the hi-lo not ten yrs from it's release, I'd probably still be on Final Factors or Sure Grip 505's. I've tried the new Tour skates, and it just didn't feel right to me, but that's for each individual to decide.

[MDE3 0]

Actually I always thought the first 72,72,80,80 mm HiLo's on the market were the Labeda's, about 4 - 6 months before Mission released their version..also equipped originally with the Labeda chassis in 1997. I never knew Tour had a HiLo set up for hockey before this.

Hyper also had a "HiLo" which was called the "split frame", but which was a 68,68,72,72 mm set up. At that time the 72 mm chassis were still pretty prevalent, although the 76 mm versions of the straight frames were beginning to appear around the same time, maybe in 1996.

I had just purchased some K2 "Hockey Pro's" which came out in the fall of 1996, and which were equipped with an all 76 mm wheel set up(one of the first I had seen to use this), on an aluminum chassis, which was adjustable for both alignment and skew. This may have been the heaviest, ugliest hockey skate(your "mother/father" wears army boots) ever produced, but it was exceedingly comfortable, also being one of the first to use the foot forming gel. With the thick webbed carbon graphite soleplate, this skate was one of the first with an aluminum chassis that did not hurt my feet. The front chassis mounting plate could not push through the heavy graphite sole causing pressure points on the balls of your feet...like the 405's tended to do, when mounted on regular hockey skates fitted with PVC outsoles.

The Mission HiLo's we first saw, were introduced at USAC Nationals in Iowa in July of 1997. We mounted a Labeda HiLO chassis on a Mission VSI skate in around May of 1997, and it cost us over $600.00..which is why I remember it so well lol. I could have waited and bought pretty much the same skate (minus the BossSwiss bearings) in July for about $100 less.

[sdcopp 1]

I remember having to put together a ton of skates in the mid to late 90's, as that was the best way to go. I remember when the hi-lo speed frames came out, just a couple months before the first hi-lo frames for hockey, b/c some friends of mine got a couple samples of the speed frames to try for the female skaters on the team with smaller feet. When my manager showed up with the brand new frames from Tour and promptly mounted them on his boots, I had to give them a spin. I remember feeling like I was skating on my toes, and haven't looked back since I purchased my own hi-lo skates. Looking back, I wish I could still purchase the Tour 8000 boot only, as it cost less than $100 and was a great boot.