Sprung Hockey

[Sprungster 5]

So that means that sprungs have the most aggressive pitch forward?

They come with the most built in forward pitch, and when your weight shifts to your toes, it increases.

[Larry54 243]

This measurement doesn't make sense to me for the Hi-Lo frames. Since you're measuring the height of the rear plate from the rear axles which are higher off the ground than the front axles, then you're not getting a reading of the pitch relative to the ground but relative to the uneven axles. So your stated pitch values of the Hi-Lo frames are lower than they actually are. Or am I missing something?

[Sprungster 5]

This measurement doesn't make sense to me for the Hi-Lo frames. Since you're measuring the height of the rear plate from the rear axles which are higher off the ground than the front axles, then you're not getting a reading of the pitch relative to the ground but relative to the uneven axles. So your stated pitch values of the Hi-Lo frames are lower than they actually are. Or am I missing something?

The Sprung 72-80 prototype is measured the same way as the Mission 72-80 Hi-Lo, which is measured the same way as the all 80 Hum'er, which is measured the same way as the all 76 A6 and all 80 A7/8s, which are measured the same way as the Mission 76-80 Hi-Lo. If you look at the frames side by side, with new wheels, the measurement system holds up, consistently.

[Larry54 243]

The Sprung 72-80 prototype is measured the same way as the Mission 72-80 Hi-Lo, which is measured the same way as the all 80 Hum'er, which is measured the same way as the all 76 A6 and all 80 A7/8s, which are measured the same way as the Mission 76-80 Hi-Lo. If you look at the frames side by side, with new wheels, the measurement system holds up, consistently.

The Sprungs may very well have the greatest pitch but the data you're using to calculate pitch values is erroneous since you're measuring to the axles instead of to the bottom of the wheels.

For example, let's say you had a hypothetical 80/72 hi-lo chassis where the rear mounting plate was 2.00" from the center of the rear axles, and the front mounting plate was the same 2.00" from the front axles. According to you method of calculating pitch, you would have 0% pitch when in fact just having larger wheels in the rear would give it some pitch. Do you see my point?

[Larry54 243]

To complicate things even further, a shorter frame with the same % pitch (calculated your way) will have a steeper pitch angle than a longer frame (simple trigonometry). The best way to represent pitch would be to give the actual angle between the ground and a line through the 2 mounting plates.

[Sprungster 5]

The Sprungs may very well have the greatest pitch but the data you're using to calculate pitch values is erroneous since you're measuring to the axles instead of to the bottom of the wheels.

For example, let's say you had a hypothetical 80/72 hi-lo chassis where the rear mounting plate was 2.00" from the center of the rear axles, and the front mounting plate was the same 2.00" from the front axles. According to you method of calculating pitch, you would have 0% pitch when in fact just having larger wheels in the rear would give it some pitch. Do you see my point?

If you have one of the frames listed, you are welcome to measure them yourself, If your wheels are fresh and all the same size, you can measure from the floor surface up to the top of the lowest point of the front mount, and from the floor surface up to the highest point of the rear mount. The frame must be perpendicular to the floor surface for accurate measurements this way. I've never been able to do it that way accurately.

The percentages are correct, and very close to each other, because the frames were designed with an optimum pitch in mind. Mission's 76-80 Hi-Lo came later, and I can't think of a reason in the world why it is so flat, when it could have been exactly the same pitch as their 72-80 HI-Lo.

[wetwilly17 6]

larry is correct. pitch is an angle, not a ratio of heights. this is an example of how to properly measure pitch:

or you could use a protractor

oh and a7s felt the same overall pitch as vangaurd to me. the benefit of sprungs being able to slightly alter the pitch bringing a whole new dimension to your skating, literally

[Sprungster 5]

This measurement doesn't make sense to me for the Hi-Lo frames. Since you're measuring the height of the rear plate from the rear axles which are higher off the ground than the front axles, then you're not getting a reading of the pitch relative to the ground but relative to the uneven axles. So your stated pitch values of the Hi-Lo frames are lower than they actually are. Or am I missing something?

You are correct. The wheel height factor was missing. NamNamNam! I've watched red tailed hawks eat crow whenever they can, so who am I to not chow down.

.5 x 72mm = 36mm = 1.410"

.5 x 76mm = 38mm = 1.495"

.5 x 80mm = 40mm = 1.575"

The above stats are half of each wheel size which, when added to the appropriate earlier measurements, include your comments and provide a true Ground. Thank you. It is better to be accurate, especially if you still smell great.

First of all, other than the A8 stats, all of the frames are taken from Size Small frames.

I list the same front, rear, front/rear %, and pitch %, and I list the frames in order of the most pitch to the least. The locations of the lowest point in the front mount varies with each frame design, and though the A8 frames are longer than the others, the actual length is often less varied than the location of the low point of the front mount plate. It is standard in the industry to use the same front and rear mount height on the medium and large models even though they are longer. I lowered the top of front mount plate on the A7 and A8 to compensate for the added length. I measured an A8 for the stats.

Here are the corrected stats with the above, much appreciated, corrections applied.

1 - Mission Hi-Lo 2 - F. 2.833"; R. 3.630"; F./R. 78.099%; Pitch 21.901%*

2 - Sprung Prototype - F. 3.160"; R. 3.975"; F./R. 79.497%; Pitch 20.503%

3 - Sprung A6 - F. 3.145"; R. 3.945"; F./R. 79.721%; Pitch 20.273%

4 - Mission Hi-Lo 1 - F. 2.930"; R. 3.665"; F./R. 79.945%; Pitch 20.055%

5 - Sprung A8 - F. 3.235"; R. 4.040"; F./R. 80.074%; Pitch 19.926%

6 - Hum'er - F. 3.040"; R. 3.676"; F./R. 82.699%; Pitch 17.301%

7 - Mission Vanguard - F. 3.190"; R. 3.630"; F./R. 87.879%; Pitch 12.121%*

* The Vanguard's stats show why it is so flat. The rear mount height of 3.630" is exactly the same as the Mission Hi-Lo 2. But, the front mount height went up, from the, Hi-Lo 2's 2.833" to 3.630", to accommodate the larger 76mm wheels. They raised the front mount, but neglected to raise the rear mount proportionally.

[Sprungster 5]

So, using all of the above information and a pair of large bolt cutters, I came up with a system to get the pitch in degrees. The ground line is the length from the lowest point (A) in the front mount plate, to the highest point (B) in the rear mount plate. The rear measurement minus the front measurement provides the perpendicular rise from point (B) to point ©. The smallest angle inside the triangle defined by the three points is the pitch of the frame. Both Mission Hi-Lo's, the Sprung Prototypes and A6's, and the Hum'ers, all have a 7" ground-line. The A8s are 7.75 and the Vanguards are 6.5". They're still in the same order.

1) Mission Hi-Lo 2 - 6.4 degree pitch

2) Sprung Prototype - 6.35 degree pitch

3) Sprung A6 - 6.3 degree pitch

4) Mission Hi-Lo 1 - 6.1 degree pitch

5) Sprung A8 - 6.0 degree pitch

6) Labeda Hum'er - 5.3 degree pitch

7) Mission Vanguard - 4.0 degree pitch

[Larry54 243]

That's great Keith... to the Nth degree! And thanks for supporting my argument with an excellent post wetwilly17.

Anyhow, however you calculate it, coming from an ice hockey background, I've never skated on better frames than the Sprungs. I still have the original Voodoo closeout model and have been playing on them on an outdoor rink once or twice a week every summer (4-5 months a year) and they're still holding up. I've always shimmed any roller frames at the heel to get them to feel more like my ice skates. Here are my current Flexlite18's on Sprungs and I have a wedge-shaped shim that tapers from around .2" to .125" (probably could have gone a bit thinner, though) to approximate the feel of my Flexlite4.0 ice skates with LS2 runners. Better to have similar pitch to other roller frames and shim the heel than to have too much pitch and have to shim the front.

BTW, I put 72mm wheels to get a lower center of gravity and lighter, quicker feet (and because I got a bunch of them real cheap) but I think I'll be going with 76mm next summer. Now if only the Sniper frame could become available, I'd be in roller heaven!

[Sprungster 5]

If you look at the rear mount plate of the close-out model and the A6s, you will see two round indents where the optional shim was going to lock into place on the frame. I even did the drawings for it. It was so you could get a pitch closer to ice holders.

[Fletch 219]

Does anyone know what kind of wheel bolts Sprungs use and if they can be purchased at a hardware store? I stripped four bolts after not using my rollers for a while and I have a game tonight (to sub for a team). I gotta get these four bolts off but I need new ones. Keith - I had emailed you earlier through your site but haven't heard back. Please help, I am desperate!

[Fletch 219]

Thanks Keith! :)

[Sprungster 5]

These are Flech's skates. Axles are on the way, today. The wheels are probably way too soft, if they're still on them. I'm using Labeda Asphalts at Covina and they are sticking like the Addictions, with no wear. I've been off them for a while, myself, with some torn left rotor cuff.

[Sprungster 5]

1) Mission Hi-Lo 2, 72-80mm - 6.4 degree pitch

2) Sprung Prototype, 72-80mm - 6.35 degree pitch

3) Sprung A6, all 76mm - 6.3 degree pitch

4) Mission Hi-Lo 1, 72-80mm - 6.1 degree pitch

5) Sprung A8, all 80mm - 6.0 degree pitch

6) Labeda Hum'er, all 80mm - 5.3 degree pitch

7) Mission Vanguard, 76-80mm - 4.0 degree pitch

This list is very incomplete without the stats for the Alkali and Reebok all 80mm frames.

[missionsparta 0]

Sprung...not sure if you got my message, but I am trying to find out how to get my preorder deposit back, if you get the time.

[Sprungster 5]

Sprung...not sure if you got my message, but I am trying to find out how to get my preorder deposit back, if you get the time.

Your message did get through and the bucks came back. Sorry about the long wait with no fun at the end.

The word at the "Let's Play Hockey and Lacrosse Show" was, as usual, "Sprungs are OK for ice players and roll on surfaces, but they don't work on sportcourt." Most of the hockey players in the world are ice players. Roll on surfaces are still the norm in most of the world. Sprungs outperform all rigid frames on sportcourt.

[romdj 26]

Your message did get through and the bucks came back. Sorry about the long wait with no fun at the end.

The word at the "Let's Play Hockey and Lacrosse Show" was, as usual, "Sprungs are OK for ice players and roll on surfaces, but they don't work on sportcourt." Most of the hockey players in the world are ice players. Roll on surfaces are still the norm in most of the world. Sprungs outperform all rigid frames on sportcourt.

Are you planning on making some more or are you guys out? As far as I know, there hasn't been any kind of production since 2010...

[Sprungster 5]

We are temporarily indisposed. We did not make enough product and we sold out before we landed an OEM deal.

But, we have the fix for the A6 rocker arms, and the costs and basic design for aluminum and mag alloy rocker arms, and the concept drawings for the next two frame designs.We have our molds and three new patents. We are tight, but we don't have any overhead compared to the smallest of the majors. We are spinning in one spot.

The exclusive use of rigid frames is shrinking the market. Every player on Sprungs and every post on this giant thread is an indicator that the hockey equipment business is limiting itself with its current frame policies. There are management guys who see dollar signs hanging off this thread and they want them. Public companies are responsible to their share holders.

We are at square one with the goods. There will be more Sprungs made.

[henryb 4]

Great to hear that Sprungs will be made once again! Hopefully soon!

Quick question about the prototypes that came out just before the A6... will the improved A6X arms work/fit in that chassis?

[Sprungster 5]

Great to hear that Sprungs will be made once again! Hopefully soon!

Quick question about the prototypes that came out just before the A6... will the improved A6X arms work/fit in that chassis?

The old "closeout model" frame is too narrow for any of the newer arms. If they have the raised logo, they won't fit.

[Kanya 3]

Tried to find the info I need using the search function to no avail :(

Keith, I am putting some A6 frames onto a pair of size 6.5 Nike One90's. Chassis all lined up and looking good, just need to get it drilled etc.

Have sorted out tee nuts in size M4 (think its same as t6, and seems to be the exact size needed) I also have the bolts sorted for the front parts of the frames.

My problem is...what length do I need for the rear bolts as the rear part of the frame is thicker then the front part. Obviously the bolts will go through the chassis and up into the teenut in the sole, I've tried 20mm length abut too long, would you reckon around 15mm? Have the right width etc just the length (which I could cut using a hacksaw...but would rather just go buy more bolts at correct length)

Figured you (or other guys) might have a better idea, as the 20mm length will be sticking up into the footbed and unsuable as they need to be flush. What size and length was used on the one95's pictured above?

[Sprungster 5]

Tried to find the info I need using the search function to no avail :(

Keith, I am putting some A6 frames onto a pair of size 6.5 Nike One90's. Chassis all lined up and looking good, just need to get it drilled etc.

Have sorted out tee nuts in size M4 (think its same as t6, and seems to be the exact size needed) I also have the bolts sorted for the front parts of the frames.

My problem is...what length do I need for the rear bolts as the rear part of the frame is thicker then the front part. Obviously the bolts will go through the chassis and up into the teenut in the sole, I've tried 20mm length abut too long, would you reckon around 15mm? Have the right width etc just the length (which I could cut using a hacksaw...but would rather just go buy more bolts at correct length)

Figured you (or other guys) might have a better idea, as the 20mm length will be sticking up into the footbed and unsuable as they need to be flush. What size and length was used on the one95's pictured above?

I have more lengths available, but I usually end up cutting the rear screws off to length with a dremel. Screw them all the way in, mark them and cut just below the mark. A hack saw will do it to, but you really have to lock the screw down to cut it cleanly.

[notquitedeadyet 13]

I have more lengths available, but I usually end up cutting the rear screws off to length with a dremel. Screw them all the way in, mark them and cut just below the mark. A hack saw will do it to, but you really have to lock the screw down to cut it cleanly.

It helps if you run a nut down the screw before you cut it, so when you back it off it will straighten out any threads that get boogered up.

Better yet, use the screw cutters that are on most wire strippers. Cuts clean & preserves the threads

[romdj 26]

well I must say that I mounted some a6's the other day, I skated 200m with them and absolutely loved them, they just felt great...until I jumped something like 15" high and broke one of the pieces... don't think these will get my 150$ again...

Well, I have used them for a month now, and I absolutely love them for turning. When going straight it doesn't do much to me, but when cornering accelerating, they are fantastic. I've gone from extreme disappointment of not being able to use them to a hype in pleasure feeling that "bump" when accelerating and turning.

Now I'm only concerned by a few things.

the pivot pin can't be removed as the plastic became just a circle in the plastic. This would be a concern, especially with the maintenance, where the replacement springs need to be in water from time to time, but if I can't remove it... do you guys take their showers (use the steam) for the skate altogether?

Just curious.

Thank you