Trinity

[tjyven]

So what do you think of the trinity frame/boot? Is that the future in skating?

[panch0]

Originally Posted by tjyven

So what do you think of the trinity frame/boot? Is that the future in skating?

I like the triangular bolt pattern concept for the sole idea of having something more solid than 2 bolts.

However, I don't think it is at all what Powerslide claims it to be, for instance,
it is not a lower set up than what we're currently using.

I think it's extremely impractical that a great majority of skaters will switch to a 3 bolt pattern when we have so much invested in the classic 2 bolt set up! Unless a significant portion of the skating market is willing to invest their money in the Trinity concept, it will be a unique concept that will die like all fads in one year.

[Krulle]

logic next step with increasing forces. But to be sure if it matters, once should measure the force on the bolts in a 2-point setup, and check if the 2point system is really getting to it's limit.

[chuckboucher]

Originally Posted by panch0

I think it's extremely impractical that a great majority of skaters will switch to a 3 bolt pattern when we have so much invested in the classic 2 bolt set up! Unless a significant portion of the skating market is willing to invest their money in the Trinity concept, it will be a unique concept that will die like all fads in one year.

Not only skaters, but boot manufacturers. They already make different length mounts (150mm, 165mm, 195mm). TO ask them to change things up for a single manufacturer's frames would be a BIG ask.

Bont tried a 3 bolt pattern a little while back and had some success. But again, you were locked into buying only Bont boots if you went with the frames and vise versa.

[spdkls]

Originally Posted by chuckboucher

Not only skaters, but boot manufacturers. They already make different length mounts (150mm, 165mm, 195mm). TO ask them to change things up for a single manufacturer's frames would be a BIG ask.

Bont tried a 3 bolt pattern a little while back and had some success. But again, you were locked into buying only Bont boots if you went with the frames and vise versa.

The biggest question is can a skater use a regular frame on the trinty boot. As a sprinter IMO, the only benefit with the triangle bolt pattern is boot flex under big force during a sprint. I haven't seen Bart on them yet cause he still likes his 125's.

[MachV]

Trinity is about the future with bigger wheels. Powerslide makes an
off road skate with 150mm wheels. Moving the mounting to the outside
of the frame makes sense.

[kufman]

The system really doesn't make any sense since your ankles can't take the kind of side force that even existing boots can dish out. Inline skates do not apply much twisting force to the boot/frame joint. We mostly push directly into the wheels. If you don't believe me, try moving your frame over half and inch and see if you can still skate.

[MachV]

The mounts are on the outside so the mounting block won't hit the 2nd wheel. The 2nd wheel channels between the mounts.

[ese002]

Originally Posted by MachV

The mounts are on the outside so the mounting block won't hit the 2nd wheel. The 2nd wheel channels between the mounts.

Mount clearance has not limited deck height since the 195 mount became popular. 110's and especially 125's are limited by clearance between the second wheel and bottom of the boot.

It's an interesting design. Maybe it would have taken off if it arrived in 2004. As it is, Trinity seems to be a solution to a problem not in evidence. Bont's 3-point design allowed for a lighter boot, at least in principle. But it wasn't enough to hold out against 2-pt 195.

[Spencer.Berry]

Originally Posted by spdkls

I haven't seen Bart on them yet cause he still likes his 125's.

Note that the PS trinity mounting system works with 3x125 as well as 4x110.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ygIwzmT2dpA

[spdkls]

Originally Posted by Spencer.Berry

Note that the PS trinity mounting system works with 3x125 as well as 4x110.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ygIwzmT2dpA

Cool.

[chuckboucher]

I don't see the benefit when using a 3x125, since you don't have the second wheel issue. My EO frames are restricted to how close I can get the center wheel to my arch and my toe wheel to the boot's toe. (Both which are less than 2mm)

[MachV]

Originally Posted by chuckboucher

I don't see the benefit when using a 3x125, since you don't have the second wheel issue. My EO frames are restricted to how close I can get the center wheel to my arch and my toe wheel to the boot's toe. (Both which are less than 2mm)

You will as wheels get bigger lol!

[panch0]

Originally Posted by MachV

The mounts are on the outside so the mounting block won't hit the 2nd wheel. The 2nd wheel channels between the mounts.

Originally Posted by chuckboucher

I don't see the benefit when using a 3x125, since you don't have the second wheel issue.

Guys, if you really look at the Trinity set up... even though one bolt/block is on each side of the wheels, the height of the boot over the wheels is the same as a regular 2 bolt mounting set up. Or you can look at it this way too, the sole of the boot, is the same height as regular 2 bolt set ups. The Trinity system shows a "channel" on the mounting block through which the wheel is supposed to pass through.... but it's not a lower set up! For this reason I think the Trinity is just a fad.... unless you're so powerful that you are breaking your regular 2 bolt set up and now you really just need to have a 3 bolt set up to contain your abnormal Hulkonian power!

[MachV]

Bont's 3-point design allowed for a lighter boot, at least in principle. But it wasn't enough to hold out against 2-pt 195.

Bont's design was patented and no other manufacturers wanted to pay royalties for using it.

[MachV]

Originally Posted by panch0

Guys, if you really look at the Trinity set up... even though one bolt/block is on each side of the wheels, the height of the boot over the wheels is the same as a regular 2 bolt mounting set up. Or you can look at it this way too, the sole of the boot, is the same height as regular 2 bolt set ups. The Trinity system shows a "channel" on the mounting block through which the wheel is supposed to pass through.... but it's not a lower set up! For this reason I think the Trinity is just a fad.... unless you're so powerful that you are breaking your regular 2 bolt set up and now you really just need to have a 3 bolt set up to contain your abnormal Hulkonian power!

If you read my earlier posts, I said Trinity is about the future. Wheels are going to get larger. Larger wheels will take up more space under the boot. The 195 mount gets in the way for bigger wheels. The mounts were moved outside so the wheels can channel in the center. It's not about a lower deck height. You can never be lower than the wheel.

Look up Powerslide Kruze 150 SUV

[kufman]

Originally Posted by MachV

If you read my earlier posts, I said Trinity is about the future. Wheels are going to get larger. Larger wheels will take up more space under the boot. The 195 mount gets in the way for bigger wheels. The mounts were moved outside so the wheels can channel in the center. It's not about a lower deck height. You can never be lower than the wheel.

Look up Powerslide Kruze 150 SUV

Regular 2-pt mounting does not get in the way of any 3-wheel setup as the middle wheel will hit the arch of the boot and not the front mount. 165 or 195 make no difference for 3-wheel setups. If you want a 3x150 setup, the height will be dictated by the middle wheel hitting the arch of the boot and not a mounting plate.

[saaty]

For me the main appealing reason to use trinity is frame interchangeability. I think that all trinity frames can be mounted on all trinity boots (am i wrong?).
No more 150 vs 165 vs 195. So i can have one boot for long distance skating, off road skating and city skating.
But i see a lost opportunity here. It would be really convenient if they went a little further and made a 4 point/bolts design. Than you could change the frames quicker without unfastening any wheel. And i know all the problems they would need to solve for that to work.

[shesk8]

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.

[gsloop]

Haven't thought about it much, but the "outside-the-frame" mounting concept appears to make shimming a frame to correct pro/supination a more complicated affair.

It wouldn't be impossible, but it wouldn't be as straight-forward either.

[On the upside, shimming farther out from the wheel center-line would be more "stable" with less force on the shim.]