Thread: Trinity
View Single Post
Old July 31st, 2017, 06:13 PM   #19
Senior Member
shesk8's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Posts: 1,056

The geometry of the wheel diameter is what drives the frame height design, and in particular clearances. I personally(imo) do not see wheels and frames getting bigger. Most women and/or smaller skaters have not migrated to 125's, nor have those with poorer technique, as it demands more from the skater. Simply put, not everyone is catching on or changing skates in response to bigger wheels. I suspect the market will taper off a bit as people try them, then migrate back onto 110's. Do you notice how any elite skaters bounce back/forth with their 125 and 110 set ups?

So, though we had early adapters of the 125's, and a market surge, not all of the market has followed suit. Many that cross-train for ice, as example, prefer 100's or even older 84mm (lower)set ups, as to keep their center of gravity more akin to the ice blades center of gravity.

If the Trinity design allowed easy migration from standard 2 point to trinity set ups, it may be / have been better received, as it would be more versatile and skaters would not be forced to purchase boots limited to the use of this system. That was a bit of Bont's discovery and dilemma as well. Their 3 points have taken a back seat for the most part, replaced by a more versatile 3PF system that can utilize a midpoint pin to achieve the same results.

On a side note - Bont's 3 point boots were not any lighter than their 2 point boots, they touted the entire 3 point skate pkg as lighter, and that was result of less metal (be it alum, or even lighter magnesium) used in the S frame design, which if compared to traditional 2 point frames by weight were lighter (but this is an apple to orange comparisons). Bont also brought stiffness to the set ups and the concept of lower pitch to the market with their 3 points. Cado had for some time as well brought lower pitched frames, with some compatibility difficulty in use with other manufactures boots.

All of this brings to forefront compatibility and industry standards, of which there are none, with exception to 165mm and 195mm mount spacing, and of course the junior spacing of 150mm - this much manufactures seem to agree on. Yet, height and clearances of boot mounts, their respective location on the sole of the boots, orientation of slots, and/or use of holes, or any combination thereof vary, as do the dimensions and locations of the slots found on the frame decks. So many variables are presented to the consumer that not always does one end up with ideal configurations, or the ability to adjust things if unexpectedly boots & frames do not match up ideally.

I personally enjoy seeing the design envelop pushed, and new ideas emerge and flourish, but also part of me prefers to see some standardization in the industry.

In reference and comparison to inline sets ups quads on the other hand pose a set of problems of their own. Whereby, we have 1 plate and 1 shot to set up a plate (truck) onto a boot, and if it's not in the best, optimal location, there is not liberty to adjust things around to get that optimal positioning. Making swiss cheese out of a leather soled boot is not favorable, and lessens the structural qualities of the set up in doing so. With quad boots, as inline, we also are presented with discrepancies in boot sizing, from manufacturer to manufacturer, which can lend to plate and boot size compatibility issues, if not recognized and adjusted for by a shop that intricately understands these incompatibility matters.

Going back to simplification and standardization as best possible will afford the consumer more choices, more versatility, and more compatibility. Until then, we make assumptions, take risks, and make do. I'd like to see that aspect of skating industry change for consumers. In other words take out the frustration component and they will be happier consumers.
From Salt Lake City where ice meets inline...
shesk8 is offline   Reply With Quote